tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/licenses

"OBATA Akio" <> writes:

> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:37:34 +0900, Takahiro Kambe 
> <> wrote:
>> In message <>
>>      on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:30:31 -0400,
>>      Greg Troxel <> 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

Interesting - I was not able to figure that out from reading it.

>  * 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}).

I can see the point that people might want to avoid GPL for things they
are redistributing, perhaps building into a product.  The license
framework is not intended to enable such people to set a few variables
and have their product be clean - it's just to avoid accidentally
building software with objectionable licenses.

I haven't yet heard of anyone who has removed gnu-gpl-v2 from
DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES as a seriously-intended way to be.
(Presumably they've first removed gcc and ld and all the other GPL bits
From their NetBSD system and are using some other toolchain :-)

>  * I know some ruby-* packages just said "LICENSE is ruby's"

In that case it's "GPL2 or ruby-license", because that is the license of
ruby itself.  Plus the upstream should be asked to clarify if that's not
really clear.  If a package says that the license is only the "alternate
ruby license" (with no GPL2 option), then we'll need to express
ruby-license in pkgsrc.

Attachment: pgpnyE3xctF_0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index