Clarify license #754
Open
Clarify license #754
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ruby/openssl is licensed under the terms of either the Ruby License or the 2-Clause BSD License. The git repository and built .gem files always contained the license text for both license, but the metadata in the gemspec only specified the Ruby License. Let's include both.
This is for consistency with ruby/ruby.
Update the references to the file "LICENCE" with "COPYING". The file LICENCE doesn't exist in ruby/ruby nor ruby/openssl. This has been always the case since OpenSSL for Ruby 2 was merged to the ruby tree as a standard library in 2003. In OpenSSL for Ruby 2's CVS repository[1], the LICENCE file contained an old version of the Ruby License, identical to the COPYING file that was in Ruby's tree at that time (r4128[2]). [1] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rubypki/ossl2/LICENCE?revision=1.1.1.1&view=markup [2] https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/231247c010acba191b78ed2d1310c935e63ad919/COPYING
hsbt
approved these changes
May 1, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I checked ruby/openssl and discovered some minor issues.
openssl.gemspeconly specified "Ruby" as the license in the metadata. This repository, and also built.gemfrom the gemspec always contained the license text for both the Ruby License (LICENSE.txt) and the 2-clause BSD License (BSDL). The Ruby License text also explicitly states that the program is dual-licensed with the 2-clause BSD License. In this case, I believe it's safe to simply correct the gemspec.Copyright notices in some source files contain the sentence "[t]his program is licensed under the same licence as Ruby" and a reference to a non-existent file
LICENCE. The fileLICENCEis supposed to contain the text of the Ruby License, according tohttp://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rubypki/ossl2/LICENCE?revision=1.1.1.1&view=markup
The content is identical to
COPYINGin the ruby's tree at the time it was mergedhttps://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/231247c010acba191b78ed2d1310c935e63ad919/COPYING
I will update the references with the new file name.