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.
>>>> <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.
>> 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/<package>/copyright'".
So, we will add a note of this fact in copyright
and close this bug.
--
akira yamada
