librelist archives

« back to archive

Shoes / BrownShoes licenses

Shoes / BrownShoes licenses

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-01-06 @ 21:24
Steve,
Have you looked at licenses?  COPY is apparently hand-coded by _why.

For BrownShoes, I'm thinking of copying Jruby Licenses :
* CPL 1.0
* GPL 2
* GNU Lesser GPL 2.1

Thoughts?

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com

Re: [shoes] Shoes / BrownShoes licenses

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-01-06 @ 21:27
Ruby code is traditionally MIT/Ruby License dual licensed. With recent
versions of Ruby, it's just MIT.
Shoes is currently MIT licensed. I'd suggest keeping brown-shoes that
way, if possible.

Re: [shoes] Shoes / BrownShoes licenses

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-01-07 @ 04:46
Well, it turns out Why's original COPYING is identical to the MIT verse.
I'm leaving it, with an additional (C) 2011 Steve Klabnik, Peter
Fitzgibbons.

I believe it should now hold our mark, but maybe keep _why, since at
minimum our work maintains the _spirit_ of the original code, purposefully.
Thoughts?

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote:

> Ruby code is traditionally MIT/Ruby License dual licensed. With recent
> versions of Ruby, it's just MIT.
> Shoes is currently MIT licensed. I'd suggest keeping brown-shoes that
> way, if possible.
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes / BrownShoes licenses

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-01-07 @ 06:32
> I believe it should now hold our mark, but maybe keep _why, since at minimum
> our work maintains the _spirit_ of the original code, purposefully.

Yep. :)