# OT: Licensing (was Re: Is ruby a viable corporate alternativ **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [November 29, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ot-licensing-was-re-is-ruby-a-viable-corporate-alternativ/77647 "2006-11-29T14:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ot-licensing-was-re-is-ruby-a-viable-corporate-alternativ/77647/1 "2006-11-29T14:47:14Z")
On 11/28/06, Ken B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Consider yourself warned that Ruby doesn’t have any native compiler (like > perlcc for perl) or bytecode compiler, so if you’re releasing your code > to the world, you have no practical way to protect your investment (yet). Funny, I get the protection that I want from the GPL (others might want to substitute there own FLOSS license). It might be worth remembering that different folks have different goals in releasing the software they write, and there are a number of mechanisms that can be used to help achieve those goals, no matter what investment you’ve made. ---
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ot-licensing-was-re-is-ruby-a-viable-corporate-alternativ/77647/2 "2006-11-29T16:55:42Z")
On 29 Nov 2006, at 13:46, pat eyler wrote: > want > to substitute there own FLOSS license). > [snip] Ditto. Come to that the amount of commercial Perl code that I’ve seen using perlcc over the last ten years comes to about zero 🙂 Not saying it never happens, but seems to be pretty darn rare if it is. Adrian