On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:15:22 +0900, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
Okay to add that to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES and default_acceptable_licenses ?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 ruby-license. 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 [1]. One more information, Ruby's license had been changed to "Ruby's original and 2-clause-BSD" in the repository [2]. 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 2-clause-bsd")? [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html [2] http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/repositories/revision/ruby-19?rev=29262 -- OBATA Akio / obache%NetBSD.org@localhost