On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 11:08:19AM +0900, akira yamada wrote: > Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: > > Package: libopenssl-ruby1.8 > > Version: 1.8.2-7sarge2 > > Severity: serious > > > > The binary package libopenssl-ruby1.8 (pure GPL) depends on libssl0.9.7 > > (OpenSSL Licence). Those 2 licences conflict due to a clause in > > OpenSSL Licence which has to be added to the GPL. > > Ruby is distributed with dual-license which is "Ruby's License" or GPL. > <URL:http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt>
Absolutely, I am well aware of that. However, for that specific binary package, it is impossible to licence it under an unalterated GPL. Hence, the choice between the GPL or the Ruby Licence is not a choice: it is automatically the Ruby Licence. Instead of licencing that particular binary package under 2 licences to choose between, it should be only licenced under the Ruby Licence. Thus, the binary package should contain only the Ruby Licence, except if Yukihiro Matsumoto alters the COPYING file to include the OpenSSL statement like that post shows it: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html>. On a side note, I am unsure about the Ruby Licence case, whether it should include the OpenSSL statement or not... BTW, I am thinking about coding a GnuTLS interface for Ruby, since it does not appear to exist and I need it. :) Cheers. -- ((__,-"""-,__)) Aurélien GÉRÔME .---. `--)~ ~(--` Free Software Developer / \ .-'( )`-. Unix Sys & Net Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@./ `~~`@) (@`~~` /`\_/`\ | | .''`. // _ \\ | | : :' : | \ )|_ (8___8) `. `'` /`\_`> <_/ \ `---` `- \__/'---'\__/ BOFH excuse #279: The static electricity routing is acting up...
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
