Enviado por vasi o Dom, 09/02/2012 - 19:12

[GFSD] Non-Free rubygems repository included and enabled

Proxecto:	Trisquel
Versión:	9.0
Componente:	License problems
Categoría:	informe de erro
Prioridade:	normal
Asignado:	Sen asignar
Estado:	postponed

Saltar a:

Most recent comment

[GFSD] The package 'rubygems' fetches gems from the repository at rubygems.org by default:

$ gem sources list
*** CURRENT SOURCES ***

http://rubygems.org/

The rubygems.org repository does not care about the license of software it contains, and in fact many such gems have no license information at all. Examples I've found are the gems 'illiad', 'rupov' and 'roflmoas'.

This means that running the command 'gem search -r pov' on a Trisquel system will advertise the gem 'rupov' to the user, without any indication that this is non-Free.

Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios

quiliro:

Lun, 09/03/2012 - 16:01

Thank you for reporting this important issue. Where did you find the license information?

Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios

vasi:

Xov, 10/18/2012 - 20:08

I just looked inside the gem for a license. Eg: For rupov, you can install the gem with 'gem install rupov', or download from the rubygems site: http://rubygems.org/gems/rupov . Looking inside, I see no mention of a license, no COPYING file, no references to "GPL" or "BSD" or "MIT" or anything. Similarly, the rupov website doesn't list any license: http://www.darkarts.co.za/rupov . The entry in the Ruby Application Archive also doesn't indicate any license: http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/rupov/. With no information about what license a copyrighted work is distributed under, we have no permission to redistribute it or to create derived works, so it clearly is non-Free.

The other gems i listed (illiad and roflmoas) have the same problem. I found these by just going through random gems, it looks like about 10% have no license information. There has been discussion about making it required for gems to include a license, but the rubygems maintainers have said no, see this thread http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2011-October/006828.html