On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 02:21:10PM +0900, akira yamada wrote: > 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".
Yes, but we *cannot* select the standard GPL, so it should not be
selected if we use OpenSSL, period.
> - "Ruby's License" doesn't conflict with OpenSSL License.
Yes, but the standard GPL *does*, period.
> - 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.
Not really, Ruby *cannot* be licenced under the standard GPL if it
uses OpenSSL.
> - 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/<package>/copyright'".
This has no relation to the issue. Of course, a package must have
a DFSG-compliant licence, but that licence must not conflict with
the licence of a library used by the package. A conflict is a DFSG
violation, a DFSG violation is a policy violation, period.
> So, we will add a note of this fact in copyright
> and close this bug.
Sure, I think it is the right thing to do if you add to that note you
*cannot* use the standard unmodified GPL if you use libruby-openssl.
Cheers.
--
((__,-"""-,__)) Aurélien GÉRÔME .---.
`--)~ ~(--` Free Software Developer / \
.-'( )`-. Unix Sys & Net Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@./
`~~`@) (@`~~` /`\_/`\
| | .''`. // _ \\
| | : :' : | \ )|_
(8___8) `. `'` /`\_`> <_/ \
`---` `- \__/'---'\__/
BOFH excuse #27: radiosity depletion
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
