Luis Lavena <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm OK. > > mongrel_service do not fall into Mongrel's licensing I believe. > > Also, since is a gem plugin, do not need to comply with GPL licensing, > correct?
I think so, but Mongrel is has been GPLv2 + Ruby license terms for years, now. > If that is the case, then yes, no complains from me. The Ruby license terms can still be chosen for mongrel_service ever an issue since Mongrel itself already has the GPLv2 option. I don't plan on removing the Ruby licensing terms option from the Unicorn license, ever[1]. This addition only affects Mongrel code that remains in Unicorn, even, so it doesn't affect Mongrel-only things like mongrel_service. If Mongrel itself ever wanted to add the GPLv3 to it's license, I'd of course be in full support to it. > If that is not the case, then you have my complain. mongrel_service > uses a library created by myself which is MIT, by turning mongrel and > mongrel_service into GPL, could affect my usage of this library in > other projects. The Ruby-specific terms remain, so I believe mongrel_service is fine. The GPLv3 option is no more "viral" than the existing GPLv2 option. > Just saying. Licensing sucks. Agreed :< -- Eric Wong _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying
