5 ms·
The encoding part is one concern, but what about ryu? Is “Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0” not accurate? Neither of those showed up in the grep for license lines? Sure,
by jsmith45 4y ago
The encoding part is one concern, but what about ryu? Is “Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0” not accurate? Neither of those showed up in the grep for license lines?
Sure, BSL is an obviously free license that is basically just a wording variant of MIT, but it is not showing up in that grep. Note: I’ve not actually read the copyright file, So perhaps It is clearly accounted for there, but is just not formatted in a way that the grep query used can find it.
- dwaite 4y agohttps://github.com/dtolnay/ryu https://github.com/dtolnay/ryu lists that choice of license in its README, in its Cargo.toml, and includes the license texts in its repository.
- jsmith45 4y agoI have verified that ryu is a dependency of json_serde, which is a dependency of ripgrep. Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0 is indeed the correct license for ryu. It is not included in the Debian copyright file. I suppose this is because the library is not included in the source package, and the BSL does not mandate notice preservation for a binary output. And Debian policy for the copyright file is that only notices or info that must be preserved are required to be present in the file.
- Aissen 4y agoFunny, I initially thought that BSL was the infamous Business Source License, a proprietary source-available license with an automatic switch to (usually) Apache 2.0 four years after each release. But no, it was the Boost Software License. https://spdx.org/licenses/BSL-1.0.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BSL-1.0.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html