Bug #16820

Updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) 10 months ago

At the very beginning of `LEGAL`, 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 that the exception list must be comprehensive. complete.    If we miss something here that shall automatically amend someone else's software there, to make it would be automatically made belong to matz. matz's.    This is very bad. 

 However this is happening happens now. 

 ## Unclear situation for under `benchmark` ## 

 For instance, instance `benchmark/so_concatenate.rb` comes with no license agreements.    Yet as we read its contents, there 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 of the file is lost.    Our `git log` tells nothing.    This file and other files others under the directory have permanently 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`. LEGAL. 

 ## Programs Those programs owned by IBM ## 

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

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