Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Put license back in gem #81

Closed
tdawson opened this issue Oct 8, 2013 · 7 comments
Closed

Put license back in gem #81

tdawson opened this issue Oct 8, 2013 · 7 comments

Comments

@tdawson
Copy link

tdawson commented Oct 8, 2013

Although I am a fan of cleaning up things. Can you please put the license back in the gem.

@zeljkofilipin
Copy link

@grosser grosser closed this as completed Oct 16, 2013
@grosser
Copy link
Owner

grosser commented Oct 16, 2013

Thanks for helping out @zeljkofilipin :D

@ktdreyer
Copy link
Contributor

Hi folks,

@tdawson is working on packaging this gem for Fedora, and the Fedora Packaging Guidelines suggest that we ask you to include the license file in the gem itself.

In the specific case of parallel's MIT license, all derivative copies of parallel are required to contain the disclaimer text within the MIT license (as described in the sentence "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.") So in order to ease development and distribution of the parallel gem, it makes sense to simply include this text the gem itself.

More details about this can be found on Fedora's wiki, under the "License Text" section: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

Would you mind re-opening this ticket in GitHub?

Would you mind adding the license file to the gem on rubygems.org?

@grosser grosser reopened this Oct 17, 2013
@grosser
Copy link
Owner

grosser commented Oct 17, 2013

What exactly is the deal with parallel vs fedora, is it somehow needed on fedora and nowhere else ?
I got 124 gems without a license text and this one suddenly is an issue ?
Are you trying to release all gems as fedora packages?

@mmahut
Copy link

mmahut commented Nov 25, 2013

The MIT license says the license text shall be included in all distribution copies, this includes gems too.

Fedora Project has a requirement to be compatible with the used license and to make things easier it is suggested to ask upstream to ship this with the gem to be in comply with the MIT license. If the upstream disagrees, this is fine, we will ship it with the package manually, but better be safe than sorry.

@ktdreyer
Copy link
Contributor

I should also add that Fedora has a policy of staying close to upstream. So it would be really awesome to see this fixed here too :)

@grosser
Copy link
Owner

grosser commented Nov 25, 2013

ok, added...

@grosser grosser closed this as completed Nov 25, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants