Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/licenses

["OBATA Akio" <obache%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:37:34 +0900, Takahiro Kambe 
<taca%back-street.net@localhost> wrote:

> In message <rmihbyogqrs.fsf%fnord.ir.bbn.com@localhost>
>       on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:30:31 -0400,
>       Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
>> > Log Message:
>> > Add Ruby programming language license.
> ...(snip)...
>> 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.

 * ruby-license itself is like a artistic license
 * it is valuable for desire to avoid GPLed software
 * I know some ruby-* packages just said "LICENSE is ruby's"

So, I suggest to take care same as perl's one
(now "gnu-gpl-v2 #OR artistic", will be ${PERL_LICENSE}).

-- 
"Of course I love NetBSD":-)
OBATA Akio / obache%NetBSD.org@localhost