> 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. I see and agree with you. I'll change it just now. Best regards. Thanks - sorry to seem difficult about this but I am really worried about the resulting complexity if we don't try hard to limit it.
Description: PGP signature