Re: [JXTA discuss] Status of JxtaRuby?

On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 17:41 -0700, Shane Isbell wrote:
> Okay, I will submit a new project.

Excellent, we are moving forward.
Now we may want to discuss how to proceed, my thought is either
extending Ruby[1,2] or use SWIG[3].

[1] http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/extending_ruby.html
[2] http://www.rubycentral.com/book/ext_ruby.html
[3] http://www.swig.org/

Next thing is to define APIs, I would recommend we carefully review the
API to be exposed from scratch(of course we will refer to Java & C API,
but we should eliminate many too low level API, IMHO). What I would like
to see is to come out a model-driven-architecture which is neutral to
language bindings.

>  In the mean time, can the Project
> JXTA group look at the licensing terms of Ruby and make sure that they
> are compatible with the JXTA license.  Ruby is distributed either
> under GPL (this is out of course) or under a non-standard open source
> license, which from my side looks okay.
> 
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt
> 

We are extending the library, not modifying the language implementation
itself, so the license should be irrelevant.

I strongly recommend we should only consider JXTA or Apache2 license on
the Ruby binding. Pretty much, we should dual-license it to include
LGPL.

FWIW, the Ruby license seems fine to me, but I am not a lawyer. 

Cheers,
-- 
Henry Jen the slowhog
http://blogs.sun.com/slowhog

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBC8UE3LNaoAyBG0PURAj5/AJ9zy4PhyQB7ESYU+CzdFjt4d2iNnwCgj0LL
yYjnh5EieaI8hUBstfFO9xw=
=77s/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----