On 2011-10-14 14:05:14 -0700, Erik Hollensbe wrote:
> Top-posting hoooooooooooooo
>
> Ok guys, let's think about this from a simple logistics standpoint.
> Neither Eric or Nick are qualified to make legal judgments on, well,
> anything as far as I'm aware of. That means RubyCentral is going to
> need a full-time lawyer, or more like an army of them, to police the
> 100,000+ gems that are out there.
>
> Maybe if one of you wants to foot the bill? Remember, in the United
> States it is *ILLEGAL* to dispense legal advice unless you are a
> licensed lawyer.
who said that ... all we want is 2 things:
1. optional have a license tag in the gem spec and warn when there is
none.
2. if people use a license tag, use the same shortnames that the linux
foundation defined. [1] no need to invent new tags now.
if some dev puts the wrong license on something or later on mixes
incompatible licenses that is out of the scope.
darix
[1] http://spdx.org/licenses/ (yes i know the site is down for maintenance atm)
--
openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
openSUSE is good for you
www.opensuse.org
_______________________________________________
RubyGems-Developers mailing list
http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
