On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 16:23:02 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:06:46 +0100 Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > > > * Francesco Poli <[email protected]> [151219 13:01]: [...] > > While the files in the ruby source package bear the > > old Unicode license header, Unicode, Inc. has published newer > > versions of those files under the current unicode.org public > > license[1] which is as free as we want it to be. > > I am happy to learn this. > The current Unicode Data Files and Software license [1] indeed looks OK > for Debian main. > > > > > Replacing the license comments in those files is work that's better > > done upstream but there's no pressing issue for us. > > Apart that the current situation is misleading and should be cured. > > > At some point > > we should probably update d/copyright saying that those files match > > the unicode.org/Public files and therefore are under the unicode.org > > public license. Or upstream gets to updating the file headers > > first. > > Please urge Ruby upstream developers to update those files, thus > replacing the old permission notice with the new one. > In the meanwhile, I think a comment should be placed in the > debian/copyright file explaining the state of affairs: otherwise, > expect a number of bug reports similar to this one in the future.
Hello Christian, I would like to reiterate the importance of curing this misleading situation. The debian/copyright file of ruby2.2 (and of ruby2.3, as well) still claims that a number of files shipped in the package are under the obsolete troublesome Unicode license. But, as you explained, they are effectively under the new DFSG-free Unicode license [1]. The fact is that the debian/copyright file is misleading. I have recently taken a look at it and found this issue. I had even forgotten about our previous discussion, hence I was about to file a new bug report about it! :-| Luckily, while checking whether anyone else had already reported the issue, I found this bug report and re-read the bug log. At that point, I saw my own previous messages and thought "wow! I had already had this discussion and completely forgot about it!"... So once again: please fix this issue, at least by placing a comment in the debian/copyright file explaining the state of affairs! Thanks for your time. Bye! [...] > > [1] http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1 -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgp4KJDI92ooc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
