Skip to content

The Ruby License #541

Open
Open

Description

@leifg

I understand that choosealicense is not an open source license directory looking for completeness.

So I'm not sure if the Ruby License fits in. The Ruby language at least is licensed under it, and as it seems some gems make use of it as well.

Activity

  1. mlinksva commented on Oct 17, 2017

    @mlinksva
    Contributor

    I seem to recall that most software under the Ruby License is also available under other licenses as well.

    Suspect the Ruby license might technically qualify to be cataloged here, though it might be hard to find 3 notable projects that use a wholly unmodified version of the license text (which is needed for detection) as most instances I've seen add info about other licensing to the top of the text.

    Feel free to document how it meets the requirements linked above if you'd like to explore cataloging it more.

  2. mlinksva commented on Jun 14, 2018

    @mlinksva
    Contributor

    Seems there's not much demand for adding the Ruby License. Feel free to comment, or add a PR if anyone wishes to pursue adding it with evidence that it meets our criteria. Thanks!

  3. nobu commented on Sep 5, 2023

    @nobu

    Most of the gems bundled with the ruby source are dual-licensed, Ruby and BSD-2-Clause, now.

  4. hsbt commented on Sep 6, 2023

    @hsbt

    @mlinksva Hello, I and @nobu are member of Ruby core team.

    We would like to set "Ruby License" to our repositories under the Ruby organization. The current metadata is Unknown, Unknown licenses found at the Ruby language. It's not helpful for users and developers.

    Can you consider to resolve this? Thanks.

  5. mlinksva commented on Sep 6, 2023

    @mlinksva
    Contributor

    Hi @hsbt happy to add the license, but as far as I can tell, same as I wrote in 2017, it'll probably be hard to find 3 example projects that would actually be detected, because uses I can easily find (like the ones you cite) include extra text before the license.

    If that text is actually an expected part of the license, one path forward would be to have that annotated in https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/Ruby.xml which we try to follow in the footsteps of.

    In any case, if you or someone else would like to open a PR here (which I'm happy to keep open until we have everything resolved), please do.

  6. Tarekchehahde commented on Jul 11, 2026

    @Tarekchehahde

    Opened #1360 — adds hidden Ruby License page with SPDX text and three using examples.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions