Takahiro Kambe <taca%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
> Module Name: pkgsrc
> Committed By: taca
> Date: Wed Jun 10 12:42:13 UTC 2009
>
> Added Files:
> pkgsrc/licenses: ruby-license
>
> Log Message:
> Add Ruby programming language license.
The license to copy ruby is GPL or <ruby-specific license>. It is
unclear if the terms in ruby-license are Open Source or Free; it is
however obvious that they are vague and difficult to interpret, and
fairly clear that they are meant to be Free/Open. (I have no reason to
think those terms have been approved by OSI or FSF, but if so that's
relevant.)
We don't really have clear guidelines, but I think it's a mistake to
have intended-to-be-free licenses checked in as foo-license, and that
it's better to defer LICENSE tagging these packages until we've
requested that upstream clean up their licensing situation (by approval
if they intend the license to be free). But in this case ruby is
clearly free software because it can be distributed under GPL2.
Given the current situation, I think it makes sense for ruby to be
tagged as gpl2, and I don't see any reason to even have ruby-license in
pkgsrc/licenses. The license framework is not supposed to be a complete
taxonomy - the purpose is just to enable people to avoid accidentally
building software with non-free licenses.
ruby-license is so confusing that redistributing something based on it
would seem to need advice of counsel. But GPL2 is well understood, and
asking pkgsrc users to put ruby-license in mk.conf seems unreasonable,
especially when gpl2 is already in the default list.
Could you explain your intent in adding/using this license?
Thanks,
Greg
Attachment:
pgpx6r1TiKX3b.pgp
Description: PGP signature