| Summary: | >=dev-lang/ruby-1.9.3 LICENSE needs to be updated | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Ulrich Müller <ulm> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Ruby Team <ruby> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | licenses, zvasylvv |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Ulrich Müller
2012-09-08 13:10:01 UTC
Fixed, with permission from graaff. This isn't fixed. - There are plenty of packages using Ruby's license which might have updated their license as well in the meantime. - I didn't want to continue to use || ( Ruby-BSD BSD-2 ) as that might give people the false impression that they could use the BSD-2 exclusively which is not the case. (In reply to Alex Legler from comment #2) > This isn't fixed. > > - There are plenty of packages using Ruby's license which might have updated > their license as well in the meantime. > - I didn't want to continue to use || ( Ruby-BSD BSD-2 ) as that might give > people the false impression that they could use the BSD-2 exclusively which > is not the case. We should probably re-check all packages that have a LICENSE containing Ruby. It is not clear why || ( Ruby-BSD BSD-2 ) would be a problem. Most packages say that their code is licensed under the same conditions as Ruby itself, so using BSD-2 exclusively should not be a problem (both for Ruby and packages with the licensing term). Or am I misunderstanding something here? Ping. Any progress? No. Looks like I asked a question that never got answered and thus never got a trigger to work on this again. My question also isn't very relevant, it turns out, since there are plenty of packages that only have a "Ruby" license or combine it with other licenses (e.g. MIT or GPL-2), so we probably need to check everything. This double licensing is confusing in any case. Is there really something that the Ruby-BSD license permits that BSD-2 doesn't? And in that case can't we simply use BSD-2 instead? (In reply to Hans de Graaff from comment #5) > This double licensing is confusing in any case. Is there really something > that the Ruby-BSD license permits that BSD-2 doesn't? And in that case can't > we simply use BSD-2 instead? It has some provisions for proprietary modifications, e.g. in section 2c, but presumably that's not relevant for us. Also, if it's double licensed, we can distribute it under one of the licenses. I have now checked all packages with the "Ruby" license, and updated the licenses and fixed any incorrect licenses. Some packages refer to the ruby license without providing actual text. I've updated these to Ruby-BSD since all current dev-lang/ruby versions use that license. Some packages include the license as text and some of them still use the old text. I've kept these as "Ruby". For reference, these are: columnize curses httpclient json pdf-core pdf-inspector power_assert prawn rdtool rubygems ttfunk |
