LEGAL is out of sync
At the very beginning of
LEGAL, it reads:
All the files in this distribution are covered under either the Ruby's
license (see the file COPYING) or public-domain except some files
This means that the exception list must be comprehensive. If we miss someone else's software there, it would be automatically made belong to matz. This is very bad.
However this is happening now.
Unclear situation for
benchmark/so_concatenate.rb comes with no license agreements. Yet as we read its contents, there is almost no doubt that it is not covered by the Ruby's license.
The problem is that the URL that was once written inside the file is lost. Our
git log tells nothing. This and other files under the directory have permanently lost their origin.
BSD licensed libraries¶
Take a look at this search result:
% git grep -i 'BSD-2-Clause' | wc -l 43
None of them are listed in
Programs owned by IBM¶
% git grep 'International Business Machines' | wc -l 4
The four occurrences of the name IBM does not include
LEGAL. Also, I wonder if they are actually compatible with Ruby's license.
% git grep 'the GNU LGPL' | wc -l 11
It seems racc is complicated.
s.licenses = ["MIT"].
- It however has some files that are LGPL.
- It also has some files that are under Ruby's license.
Which one should we believe? If we mix all of them, the library as a whole must be under LGPL. Am I right?
Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) over 2 years ago
@hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) Did you want to change license of those libraries from Ruby's to "BSD only"? Then we should list up all of them in LEGAL. If you didn't intend to change their license (== they are still dual-licensed), then their gemspec shall be updated to reflect that info like
s.licenses = ["Ruby", "BSD-2-Clause"]. Note that "Ruby" is a valid SPDX ID that you can write there.
Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) over 2 years ago
If you didn't intend to change their license (== they are still dual-licensed), then their gemspec shall be updated to reflect that info like s.licenses = ["Ruby", "BSD-2-Clause"].
We should update it to gemspec files especially the default gems.
Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) almost 2 years ago
racc.gemspec says s.licenses = ["MIT"].
It's my mistake. It should be use "Ruby" license. I fixed at https://github.com/ruby/racc/commit/f600effadaec9e389fc336309021640c565c7232.
It however has some files that are LGPL.
It also has some files that are under Ruby's license.
racc uses Ruby license now. If some files show LGPL, We should update it to Ruby's license.