I have some questions in regards to the applications that I create using
RoR and Ruby. Do I own the copyright on the scripts that I author? Can
I distribute my scripts as proprietary?
I think I’m good with the the MIT license (for RoR) since it covers just
the modification and distribution of the RoR framework.
In regards to the Ruby interpreter and libraries, I’m a little fuzzy.
My scripts are inputs to the Ruby interpreter which I would think would
qualify me for clause (5)
The scripts and library files supplied as input to or produced as
output from the software do not automatically fall under the
copyright of the software, but belong to whomever generated them,
and may be sold commercially, and may be aggregated with this
software.
On the other-hand, I’ve read some discussions about how GPL extends the
GPL license to any software that statically or dynamically links to
GPL’ed libraries. Does this apply also to Ruby libraries?
If someone can verify/correct my understanding on RoR and Ruby’s license
that would be appreciated.
… I’ve read some discussions about how GPL extends the
GPL license to any software that statically or dynamically
links to GPL’ed libraries. Does this apply also to Ruby
libraries?
If someone can verify/correct my understanding on RoR and
Ruby’s license that would be appreciated.
IANAL, but I used to redistribute Free Software…
In general, the answer is that (a) you own what you wrote
and (b) using Ruby or Rails libraries doesn’t “infect” your
code in any manner. Static linking and inclusion of source
code are exceptions, but neither tends to be a problem. Use
of an interpreter or the supporting libraries is well-trodden
ground and isn’t a problem.
Open Source licences aren’t supposed to restrict the way in
which the code is used, only its redistribution, relicensing,
etc. So, as long as your use is within (say) a company, you
aren’t likely to have any problem at all. Even when you are
redistributing software externally, the rules aren’t onerous:
Don’t claim that you wrote or own others’ material.
Don’t distribute binaries that are based on GPLed code
without being willing to distribute the source code, as
well. This could, for example, apply to distributing
the Ruby interpreter.
However, the “Library” (aka Lesser) GPL was specifically
designed to handle this situation. In the unlikely event
that the regular GPL was used AND the author is unwilling
to accept the Lesser GPL AND redistribution is an issue,
you might have a problem. But it’s unlikely…
In any case, accommodating and courteous behavior will get you
out of most disputes. Conversely, strict adherence to legalisms
may be insufficient to avoid calumny, if you aren’t perceived as
being courteous and acting in good faith.
Thanks for detailed explanation, Rich. Much appreciated.
Got another follow up question, if I adhere to the conditions you
specified (quoted below), can I freely bundle RoR and Ruby with my
commercial product? In other words, create a distribution package where
the free software pieces have their MIT/Ruby/GPL licenses intact and
include my proprietary pieces which are not distributable (without my
consent). I believe the answer is yes, but I would greatly appreciate
your confirmation.
Don’t claim that you wrote or own others’ material.
Don’t distribute binaries that are based on GPLed code
without being willing to distribute the source code, as
well. This could, for example, apply to distributing
the Ruby interpreter.
FYI, a visit to the www.opensource.org is always a good starting
point in these matters, as is a visit to www.fsf.org. You should
also read some of Richard Stallman’s essays, in order to get the
rationale behind the GPL, etc.
Thanks for detailed explanation, Rich. Much appreciated.
Got another follow up question, if I adhere to the conditions
you specified (quoted below), can I freely bundle RoR and Ruby
with my commercial product? In other words, create a
distribution package where the free software pieces have their
MIT/Ruby/GPL licenses intact and include my proprietary pieces
which are not distributable (without my consent). I believe
the answer is yes, but I would greatly appreciate your
confirmation.
In general, the answer is yes. Due diligence requires you to
find out, however, about the precise terms of each license on
any software you redistribute. Ruby, for example, gives you a
choice of licenses.
As far as the GPL is concerned, I thrashed out this question a
number of years ago with RMS. As long as you don’t declare a
“collection copyright” (but limit yourself to the copyright on
your own works) and don’t try to override the terms set by the
original authors of the included software, you should be OK.
FYI, a visit to the www.opensource.org is always a good starting
point in these matters, as is a visit to www.fsf.org. You should
also read some of Richard Stallman’s essays, in order to get the
rationale behind the GPL, etc.