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

License file in gem #2443

Closed
voxik opened this issue Jul 16, 2012 · 6 comments
Closed

License file in gem #2443

voxik opened this issue Jul 16, 2012 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@voxik
Copy link

voxik commented Jul 16, 2012

Hi,

Would you mind to include License file in the coffee-script-source gem? I am packaging this gem for Fedora and the packaging guidelines [1] requires me to ask you. Thank you.

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

@ghost ghost assigned jashkenas Jul 16, 2012
@michaelficarra
Copy link
Collaborator

If I'm not mistaken, that gem hasn't been updated in a long time. Also, the license is available in the /License file. It should be MIT.

@sstephenson
Copy link
Contributor

We push a new coffee-script-source gem with every official CoffeeScript release. https://rubygems.org/gems/coffee-script-source

The gem itself does not include the license file, but the bundled coffee-script.js does include this header:

/**
 * CoffeeScript Compiler v1.3.3
 * http://coffeescript.org
 *
 * Copyright 2011, Jeremy Ashkenas
 * Released under the MIT License
 */

@michaelficarra
Copy link
Collaborator

Oh, interesting. What exactly does that gem provide?

@sstephenson
Copy link
Contributor

coffee-script-source is extras/coffee-script.js packaged in a gem, with the same version number as the CoffeeScript release it packages, for use by the ruby-coffee-script gem.

ruby-coffee-script is released under the MIT license and lets you invoke the CoffeeScript compiler from Ruby.

@jashkenas has the final say on this, but IMO the coffee-script-source gem should be considered to have the same license as CoffeeScript itself.

@jashkenas
Copy link
Owner

Works for me.

@voxik
Copy link
Author

voxik commented Jul 16, 2012

There is no doubt about license. Just the independent LICENSE file should be included in the source package as required by the guidelines. But that is not showstopper, so nothing urgent.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants