domain_name safe for commercial use?Ruby gem package · License: BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND MPL-2.0
domain_name is licensed under BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND MPL-2.0. Nothing below is blocked, but it carries a source-disclosure obligation — what triggers it differs by how you ship, so read the table.
| How you ship it | Result | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Hosted SaaS | No obligation | Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference. |
| Distributed binary / app | No obligation | Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference. |
| Delivered to customer | No obligation | Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference. |
| Internal use only | No obligation | Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference. |
| Published library | No obligation | Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference. |
AttributionSource disclosure
If you only use it at build time, the answer changes.
Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / MPL-2.0 appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
domain_name is licensed under BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND MPL-2.0. Nothing below is blocked, but it carries a source-disclosure obligation — what triggers it differs by how you ship, so read the table.
Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.
Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.
Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.
Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.
Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / MPL-2.0 applies copyleft per file, not to your project as a whole. Files it covers must stay under it and their modifications must be published, while your own files may carry any terms you choose. It treats static and dynamic linking alike, so how you link makes no difference.
Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-2-Clause appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / Multiple licenses apply at once. BSD-3-Clause appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / MPL-2.0 appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
This page covers one package. Your Gemfile.lock has many more.
Check your whole manifest →The license was read from the Ruby gem registry, then evaluated against each shipping model. Only the declared license is considered; code copied into a project's own source files is not detected by this method.
License data last reviewed .
LicenseGuard reports information derived from published license texts and dependency manifests. It is not legal advice and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results reflect license metadata as declared; they do not identify every obligation or violation. Consult qualified counsel for decisions that matter.
Listed in the official MCP registry, on Glama and on Smithery. Source on GitHub (Apache-2.0).