Re: RFS: ruby-test-unit
2011/9/22 Cédric Boutillier <email@example.com>:
> Thank you very much for reviewing the package. I implemented your comments.
Is /usr/bin/testrb exactly same as the one that comes with ruby?
> This is something I am struggling with indeed. I thought it could be a
> bug in lintian, since the Ruby license is a license by itself, even if
> it refers to GPL. But then I realized that you can find ruby libraries
> distributed under the specific conditions of Ruby or GPL, but the GPL
> can be: v2, v2 or v3, or v2+. And this has to be specified somehow.
> So I came to the (personnal conclusion) that what I should call Ruby
> license are the specific conditions mentionned explicitely in the
> COPYING file below the header, and that I need to precise which version
> of the GPL I am referring to.
> With this convention, Ruby1.8 and Ruby1.9.1 are thus licensed GPL2 or
> Ruby. ruby-ttfunk is GPL2 or GPL3 or Ruby. And mentioning the specific
> version of GPL makes lintian happy :) Has anybody else another
> opinion on this issue?
Thanks for the explanation. I will refer to this if I come across
> The fact that Ruby is not listed in the keyword list for License short
> name is not an issue. This list does not contain Python Software
> Foundation License either. Moreover, the drivers of DEP-5 do not really
> want to modify the text before it is definitely integrated to Debian
> policy and reaches its final destination on the website (a modification
> would imply a new format version...)
Well, one of the core dep5 goals is to make copyright file machine
readable and if we have no reliable way of determining exact license
of packages using ruby's license it may be a problem. But it
definitely is a much smaller problem than what dep5 is addressing. It
could still change if it is worthwhile.
You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your
rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as
they follow the rules: laws and constitution.