Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:11:15PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: 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. Oops, I just made a typo here: s/libruby-openssl/libruby-openssl/. Cheers. -- ((__,--,__)) Aurélien GÉRÔME .---. `--)~ ~(--` Free Software Developer / \ .-'( )`-. Unix Sys Net Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@./ `~~`@) (@`~~` /`\_/`\ | |.''`. // _ \\ | | : :' : | \ )|_ (8___8) `. `'` /`\_` _/ \ `---` `- \__/'---'\__/ BOFH excuse #121: halon system went off and killed the operators. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence
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
Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence
I really need to wake up... Sorry. :/ s/libruby-openssl/libopenssl-ruby/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence
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
Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence
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. 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. -- akira yamada
Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence
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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html. 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
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
Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence
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. URL:http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt -- akira yamada
