On 19/03/10 at 17:27 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: > >Ruby is licensed under the Ruby license, or GPLv2. The exact terms for > >the choice are: > >Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto > ><[email protected]>. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either > >the terms of the GPL version 2 (see the file GPL), or the conditions > >below: > >[ Ruby license ] > > No linking exception for linking ruby gpl-code with openssl?
Unfortunately no. > My understanding is as follow: As you use libreadline, which is > GPLed, we ship ruby under the term of the GPL anyway. So we would > need the link exception, wouldn't we? > > So, now let's assume, we get that from the ruby folks: We will do our best to get an exception before the release. Now, what if we don't? Are such problems considered RC, or just "it's not legally safe, but it's a risk we could take"? > > When building ruby, two interesting extensions (separate .so files) > > are built. > > - readline.so is built by linking with libreadline5 (GPLv2) > > - openssl.so is built by linking with openssl. > [..] > >Questions: > >1/ Can we ship those files? > > 2/ Can we ship those files in the same binary package? > > I think so, yes. As we don't ship code, which links to both, > libreadline and openssl, do we? No, no code linked to both. > >3/ Can we distribute a ruby application that "require" (that's the ruby > >keyword for loading libraries) both readline and openssl? > > I think we can do this, too. TTBOMK ruby code is interpreted at > runtime, isn't it? So with such an application, we again don't ship > code that is linked to both libreadline and openssl. Yes, everything happens at runtime (no bytecode, etc). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [email protected] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [email protected] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
