[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: why unacceptable license condition: ruby-license ?
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:15:22 +0900, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>
Okay to add that to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES and
Perhaps, but not quite. Two issues, both solvable I think:
1) The key question is whether either the FSF considers the Ruby license
to be Free, or the OSI considers it to be Open Source. The Ruby license
is GPLv2 or some hard-to-understand obviously-intended-to-be-Freeish
conditions. So therefore I think it's Free.
2) If we decide that ruby's license meets the pkgsrc definition of Free
or Open Source, then the license file should be moved to ruby from
So if you think my analysis is ok, I think it's ok for you to mv the
license from ruby-license to ruby, update all the files that point to
it, and put it in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES.
"ruby-license" has double meaning.
1) Ruby's original license itself
2) dual license (Ruby original and GPLv2).
2) came from the head of ruby-license, dual-licensing clause.
Neither FSF nor OSI approve Ruby original license as Free.
But from 2), FSF approve it as Free .
One more information, Ruby's license had been changed to
"Ruby's original and 2-clause-BSD" in the repository .
Should we consider current and new Ruby's license separately?
How about set "RUBY_LICENSE=ruby-license AND gnu-gpl-v2",
same as PERL_LICENSE (and it will be changed to "ruby-license AND
OBATA Akio / obache%NetBSD.org@localhost
Main Index |
Thread Index |