Bug #5144: Remove GPL file from repository

• Status: Rejected
• Assignee: naruse (Yui NARUSE)
• Target version: -
• ruby -v: -

[vo.x (Vit Ondruch)]

Since Ruby 1.9.3 is going to be licensed under Ruby and BSD licenses, the GPL file should be removed from the repository to avoid confusion.

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

• Status changed from Open to Rejected

As written in LEGAL, Ruby repository still includes GPL licensed files.

[vo.x (Vit Ondruch)]

I am sorry, but where is the consistency? In LEGAL file, there is listed myriad of licenses but GPL has dedicated file? Why not others?

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

Because GPL requires it:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• Status changed from Rejected to Assigned
• Assignee set to naruse (Yui NARUSE)

I agree with Vit. It is actually confusing.
Can we move it to doc/GPL?

--
Yusuke Endoh [e-mail]

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

Yusuke Endoh wrote:

I agree with Vit. It is actually confusing.
Can we move it to doc/GPL?

I can't agree.
Why do you want to hide such important thing?

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

Because it is confusing.
I think that providing too many or confusing information is equivalent to hiding the correct information.

--
Yusuke Endoh [e-mail]

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

Yusuke Endoh wrote:

Because it is confusing.
I think that providing too many or confusing information is equivalent to hiding the correct information.

Ruby repository includes GPL codes is correct information.
It is critical information when they distribute a binary for Windows.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

It is critical information when they distribute a binary for Windows.

Okay, then, how about renaming it to GPL.for_win ?

--
Yusuke Endoh [e-mail]

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

Yusuke Endoh wrote:

It is critical information when they distribute a binary for Windows.

Okay, then, how about renaming it to GPL.for_win ?

No, GPL is GPL.
If they notice the GPL file and worry, they should learn.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

No, GPL is GPL.

Sure. It is just renaming the filename. Does GPL prohibit doing so?

If they notice the GPL file and worry, they should learn.

Sorry, I cannot understand you. What do they worry?

--
Yusuke Endoh [e-mail]

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

If they notice the GPL file and worry, they should learn.
Sorry, I cannot understand you. What do they worry?

I think you are blamed. You see the GPL file is confusing and that's because you are ignorant, he says.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• ruby -v changed from ruby 1.9.3dev (2011-07-31 revision 32789) [x86_64-linux] to -

2011/8/3 Shyouhei Urabe [e-mail]:

I think you are blamed. You see the GPL file is confusing and that's because you are ignorant, he says.

Sorry. I want you to clarify the license because I'm ignorant.

I'm suggesting just renaming or moving, not removing the GPL file.
Is it unacceptable?

I also want you to confirm my understanding is correct.
Ruby still has some codes licensed under dual license of Artistic
or GPL (a part (for windows) of util.c, win32/win32.c, and
ext/win32ole/win32ole.c), and they are actually mixed in the
binary, at least, for windows. So A windows binary of Ruby must
be distributed under GPL unless we choose Artistic License. Right?

Must a binary for other platforms be distributed under GPL in the
same condition? Isn't it better that the part of util.c under GPL
should be separated into the other file?

--
Yusuke Endoh [e-mail]

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

(08/03/2011 09:30 AM), Yusuke ENDOH wrote:

I'm suggesting just renaming or moving, not removing the GPL file.
Is it unacceptable?

I think you need a valid reason to do so, other than just "confusing".

I also want you to confirm my understanding is correct.
Ruby still has some codes licensed under dual license of Artistic
or GPL (a part (for windows) of util.c, win32/win32.c, and
ext/win32ole/win32ole.c)

Yes.

and they are actually mixed in the
binary, at least, for windows.

Yes.

So A windows binary of Ruby must
be distributed under GPL

Yes.

unless we choose Artistic License. Right?

Who is the "we"? Anyway I'm not sure if the source codes in Ruby's
repository are still valid for Artistic's restriction. We are not
posting our source codes to uunet. See chapter 3:

http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_1_0

Must a binary for other platforms be distributed under GPL in the
same condition?

Why?

Isn't it better that the part of util.c under GPL
should be separated into the other file?

Might be.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• Status changed from Assigned to Rejected

Thank you for your helpful answers.

2011/8/3 Urabe Shyouhei [e-mail]:

(08/03/2011 09:30 AM), Yusuke ENDOH wrote:

I'm suggesting just renaming or moving, not removing the GPL file.
Is it unacceptable?

I think you need a valid reason to do so, other than just "confusing".

I have no more reason if confusing is not enough.
So I'm closing this ticket.

So A windows binary of Ruby must be distributed under GPL

Yes.

Thanks. I think that it is very important opinion for Ruby
package distributors for windows platform.

Must a binary for other platforms be distributed under GPL in the
same condition?

Why?

Just want to confirm. Could you give me yes or no?

Isn't it better that the part of util.c under GPL
should be separated into the other file?

Might be.

The code has been deleted. Smart!

--
Yusuke Endoh [e-mail]

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

Yusuke Endoh wrote:

Must a binary for other platforms be distributed under GPL in the
same condition?

Why?

Just want to confirm. Could you give me yes or no?

No, because the binary doesn't include the code or related results.

[spatulasnout (B Kelly)]

Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

Anyway I'm not sure if the source codes in Ruby's
repository are still valid for Artistic's restriction. We are not
posting our source codes to uunet. See chapter 3:

http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_1_0

(I Am Not A Lawyer) The part about uunet seems
parenthetical:

a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or
otherwise make them Freely Available, SUCH AS by posting
said modifications to Usenet or an EQUIVALENT MEDIUM,
or placing the modifications on a major archive site
SUCH AS ftp.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder
to include your modifications in the Standard Version of
the Package.

I suppose we could ask Larry Wall, but I'm pretty sure

http://svn.ruby-lang.org/

is harmonious with the intent of the license.

Regards,

Bill