[tex-live] Ruby interpreter for Windows in the TeXLive distribution?

[David Kastrup]

Siep Kroonenberg <siepo at cybercomm.nl> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 06:18:21PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
>> To repeat my previous point, apparently lost in the noise: if someone
>> cares to find or create a ruby.zip file for Windows that can go in
>> /support, it can go there.  If not, not.
>> 
>> If someone wants to go further and make a ruby package that is
>> installable in TL, that's cool too.
>
> There is a one-click installer at
> http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?RubyInstaller
>
> I understand that it can be redistributed under either the Ruby
> License (http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt) or under the GPL,
> although the package also contains Windows redistributables.

"Under the GPL" implies that we'd also need to provide the
corresponding source code or a written offer.

The relevant parts of the above license file would be

    3. You may distribute the software in object code or executable
         form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:

           a) distribute the executables and library files of the software,
              together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent)
              on where to get the original distribution.

           b) accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of
              the software.

           c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, with
              instructions on where to get the original software distribution.

           d) make other distribution arrangements with the author.

      4. You may modify and include the part of the software into any other
         software (possibly commercial).  But some files in the distribution
         are not written by the author, so that they are not under this terms.

         They are gc.c(partly), utils.c(partly), regex.[ch], st.[ch] and some
         files under the ./missing directory.  See each file for the copying
         condition.

While 3a) looks fine for TeXLive, it is actually contradicted by 4.
Assuming that the specified files are under GPL, it would appear that
the whole dual-license thing is not really watertight according to the
interpretation put forward by the FSF and not yet contested in court.

So it would appear that we'd be better off providing a corresponding
source package as well.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum