I was thinking about this earlier, actually, when I posted the copy of Potion I had laying around. On the one hand, he released the code open source (MIT license, in the case of Potion), so we completely have the right to do this. Says so right in the license file.

On the other hand, it might be rude. He did take everything down, for whatever reason. If he posted something, anywhere, saying that he didn't want people resurrecting his projects, I'd take down my copy of Potion.

But, I think intent should count for something: I posted a copy of one of _why's projects out of respect. I appreciate everything he's given us, both code and inspiration, and I want to share that with others. I want to teach my friends to code in Shoes, and write chiptunes in Bloopsaphone. From everything he's written, I can only think he'd like that.

We're not resurrecting his work to steal it, but celebrate it.

I believe that _why is the kind to put thought into his licensing decisions. He wrote openly-licensed code (MIT especially) because he didn't want the rights, or the respect, or anything else for the code; he simply wanted to bring forth something good unto the world. I'd be very surprised if, given _why's reappearance, he requested a takedown.

Still, I agree: if he has had a change of heart, we should support whatever the new _why wants, even if it contradicts the old _why; with all he's done for the Ruby community, he's earned the right to be contradictory. Licenses are contracts, and contracts let amoral entities (companies) work together; they aren't needed where fellowship exists.