# Rubys License **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [July 12, 2007, 12:13am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-license/109161 "2007-07-12T00:13:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 12:13am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-license/109161/1 "2007-07-12T00:13:54Z")
Hello everybody ! I was just looking up something on the OSI website when I saw that the Ruby license isn’t listed there. Because I was wondering about that I had a look at the license: You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL (see COPYING.txt file), or the conditions below Q: Is Ruby know under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 ? Kind regards Dominik ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 12:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-license/109161/2 "2007-07-12T00:28:55Z")
On 7/11/07, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Hello everybody ! > > I was just looking up something on the OSI website when I saw that the > Ruby license isn’t listed there. Because I was wondering about that I > had a look at the license: > > You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL > (see COPYING.txt file), or the conditions below > > Q: Is Ruby know under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 ? Ruby is disjunctively licensed between Matz’s Terms and the GPLV2: [http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt) The only reason it’s not listed on the OSI site is (AFAIK) no one has sought their official approval. However, a while ago I talked with the FSF to get their approval, and I’m not sure if others did as well, but at any rate, it is listed as a GPL compatible Free Software license due to the explicit dual licensing with the GPL. [http://www.fsf.org/licensing](http://www.fsf.org/licensing) For this reason, I _assume_ that means that it meets the OSI definition as well, but I don’t much pay attention to them. 😉 But in short, Ruby is Free and Open Source software… -greg ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 1:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-license/109161/3 "2007-07-12T01:26:59Z")
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi! removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL > (see COPYING.txt file), or the conditions below > > Q: Is Ruby know under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 ? Ruby does not specify the GPL version therefore applies “…If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation…” Alternative license has already been mentioned by Gregory B… IANAL but HTH, Josef ‘Jupp’ Schugt * * * Blog available at [http://www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-schugtjo/blog/](http://www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-schugtjo/blog/) PGP key with id 6CC6574F available at [http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/](http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - [http://enigmail.mozdev.org](http://enigmail.mozdev.org) iD8DBQFGlWbgrhv7B2zGV08RAmzsAJ4ryQ6omlZ9E7B5PSMWs9VDjb+LhwCfUkAA Ug46s4tz6YguDzciiIP4yo8= =CaHf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 1:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-license/109161/4 "2007-07-12T01:36:01Z")
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Gregory B. wrote: > > Q: Is Ruby know under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 ? > > licensing with the GPL. > > [FSF Licensing & Compliance Team — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software](http://www.fsf.org/licensing) > > For this reason, I _assume_ that means that it meets the OSI > definition as well, but I don’t much pay attention to them. 😉 > > But in short, Ruby is Free and Open Source software… It meets the DFSG too, which are pretty strict, otherwise it wouldn’t be in Debian proper. \*t – ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 1:47am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-license/109161/5 "2007-07-12T01:47:02Z")
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Josef ‘Jupp’ Schugt wrote: > > Q: Is Ruby know under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 ? > > Ruby does not specify the GPL version therefore applies Hmm, seems to depend on the Ruby version. Recent Ruby versions state GPL 2, License on ruby-talk doesn’t. Josef ‘Jupp’ Schugt * * * Blog available at [http://www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-schugtjo/blog/](http://www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-schugtjo/blog/) PGP key with id 6CC6574F available at [http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/](http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - [http://enigmail.mozdev.org](http://enigmail.mozdev.org) iD8DBQFGlWuurhv7B2zGV08RAl4cAJ0Sikhj86OK0rUb+Dov12+32PzgoACcCCGb DzoN6w9savQC/xQDapA719o= =pmls -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 2:35am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-license/109161/6 "2007-07-12T02:35:05Z")
On 7/11/07, Josef ‘Jupp’ Schugt [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Josef ‘Jupp’ Schugt wrote: > > > > Q: Is Ruby know under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 ? > > > > Ruby does not specify the GPL version therefore applies > > Hmm, seems to depend on the Ruby version. > Recent Ruby versions state GPL 2, License on ruby-talk doesn’t. Right, I brought this up maybe a year ago and Matz decided to lock it to GPLv2 (which is a smart move, as the ‘or any later version’ clause is viral) He said he was considering moving to GPL3 when it became finalized. I’ve not asked what he thinks, and honestly haven’t decided what I think about GPL 3 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 1:38am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-license/109161/7 "2007-07-12T01:38:02Z")
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 07:27:23AM +0900, Gregory B. wrote: > > Q: Is Ruby know under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 ? > > Ruby is disjunctively licensed between Matz’s Terms and the GPLV2: > [http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt) > > The only reason it’s not listed on the OSI site is (AFAIK) no one has > sought their official approval. There are costs associated with OSI approval. It is, thus, probably in part the matter of money that has prevented the Ruby license from being listed there.