Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence

2006-05-22 Thread akira yamada 
Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> 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.
 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.
>> User of this package can use it as a source package.
>> And they can choise to build without OpenSSL.
>> So I think that debian/copyright has correct information.
>>
>> We may add this point as a note to libopenssl-ruby1.8.README.Debian,
>> but I think that it is not a serious bug.
> 
> It would be wise to do so. However, it is indeed a serious bug. I
> did not set the severity to serious, because I found it funny to
> annoy people, but rather because licences conflict violates the DFSG,
> and by doing so, the Debian Policy.

I think that ruby packages does not violate DFSG:

  - Ruby doesn't violate DFSG even if it is build with OpenSSL
because we can select "Ruby's License".

  - "Ruby's License" doesn't conflict with OpenSSL License.

  - Programs cann't use libopenssl-ruby and other GPL'ed libraries.
But it is a problem of such programs,
it isn't a problem of ruby packages.

  - policy 2.3 says "Every package must be accompanied
by a verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license
in the file `/usr/share/doc//copyright'".

So, we will add a note of this fact in copyright
and close this bug.

-- 
akira yamada

Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence

2006-05-16 Thread Aurélien GÉRÔME 
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:12:31PM +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.
> >> 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.
> 
> User of this package can use it as a source package.
> And they can choise to build without OpenSSL.
> So I think that debian/copyright has correct information.
> 
> We may add this point as a note to libopenssl-ruby1.8.README.Debian,
> but I think that it is not a serious bug.

It would be wise to do so. However, it is indeed a serious bug. I
did not set the severity to serious, because I found it funny to
annoy people, but rather because licences conflict violates the DFSG,
and by doing so, the Debian Policy.

Cheers.
-- 
((__,-"""-,__))  Aurélien GÉRÔME   .---.
 `--)~   ~(--`   Free Software Developer  / \
.-'(   )`-.  Unix Sys & Net Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@./
`~~`@)   (@`~~`   /`\_/`\
| |.''`. //  _  \\
| |   : :'  :   | \ )|_
(8___8)   `. `'`   /`\_`>  <_/ \
 `---`  `- \__/'---'\__/
BOFH excuse #63: not properly grounded, please bury computer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence

2006-05-16 Thread akira yamada 
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.
>> 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.

User of this package can use it as a source package.
And they can choise to build without OpenSSL.
So I think that debian/copyright has correct information.

We may add this point as a note to libopenssl-ruby1.8.README.Debian,
but I think that it is not a serious bug.

-- 
akira yamada

Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence

2006-05-13 Thread Aurélien GÉRÔME 
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.
> 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:
.

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

Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence

2006-05-12 Thread akira yamada 
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.
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt>

-- 
akira yamada

Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence

2006-05-12 Thread Aurélien GÉRÔME 
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.

Some other packages, lftp and ircd-hybrid for instance, have
deactivated SSL support due to that conflict.

Though the following may apply to other libopenssl-ruby*, i.e.
libopenssl-ruby1.6 and libopenssl-ruby1.9, I open just one bug
for now...

The binary package libopenssl-ruby1.8 should not be distributed
anymore, except if the upstream author alters the GPL by adding what
the OpenSSL Licence paragraph 3 and 6 require:

"This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for
use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)"

Cheers.
-- 
((__,-"""-,__))  Aurélien GÉRÔME   .---.
 `--)~   ~(--`   Free Software Developer  / \
.-'(   )`-.  Unix Sys & Net Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@./
`~~`@)   (@`~~`   /`\_/`\
| |.''`. //  _  \\
| |   : :'  :   | \ )|_
(8___8)   `. `'`   /`\_`>  <_/ \
 `---`  `- \__/'---'\__/
BOFH excuse #108: The air conditioning water supply pipe ruptured
over the machine room


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature