Bug #16820

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) about 1 year ago

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 
 > mentioned below. 

 This means the list must be complete.    If we miss something here that shall automatically amend someone else's software to make it matz's.    This is very bad. 

 However this happens now. 

 ## Unclear situation under `benchmark` ## 

 For instance `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 the URL written inside of the file is lost.    Our `git log` tells nothing.    This file and others under the directory definitely lost their origin. 

 ## Those BSD licensed libraries ## 

 Take a look at this search result: 

 % git grep -i 'BSD-2-Clause' | wc -l 

 None of them are listed in LEGAL. 

 ## Those programs owned by IBM ## 

 % git grep 'International Business Machines' | wc -l 

 The 4 occurrence of the name of IBM does not include LEGAL.    Also, I wonder if they are actually compatible with Ruby's. 

 ## Those LGPL portions ## 

 % git grep 'the GNU LGPL' | wc -l 

 It seems racc is complicated. 

 - `racc.gemspec` says `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?