Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skriver:

> Maxime Devos schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 20:29 [+0200]:
>> Remco van 't Veer schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 17:55 [+0200]:
>> > +        
>> "042xrdk7hsv4072bayz3f8ffqh61i8zlhvck10nfshllq063n877"))))
>> 
>> This matches with a local
>> 
>> $ guix download
>> https://cache.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/2.7/ruby-2.7.6.tar.gz’
>> 
>> and with all the hashes from
>> <https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2022/04/12/ruby-2-7-6-released/>.
>> 
>> I'll try diffing (*) it with the old tarball for ‘suspiciousness’
>> (e.g.: obvious malware, new bundling, ???).
>
> When scrolling through the diff, nothing looked ‘suspect’ at first
> glance.  However, I did notice something else: some parts are not 
> under the Ruby License, but under 2-clause BSD:
>
> │ ├── +++ ruby-2.7.4/gems/xmlrpc-0.3.0/LICENSE.txt
> │ │┄ Files 26% similar despite different names
> │ │ @@ -1,13 +1,10 @@
> │ │ -test-unit is copyrighted free software by Kouhei Sutou
> │ │ -<kou@cozmixng.org>, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>
> │ │ -and Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws>.
> │ │ -
> │ │ -You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of
> the GPL
> │ │ -version 2 (see the file GPL), or the conditions below:
> │ │ +Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto
> <matz@netlab.jp>.
> │ │ +You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of
> the
> │ │ +2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL), or the conditions below:
>
> so it maybe be good to add ‘2-clause BSDL’ to the license field as well
> (though given that it's an old issue, bringing the new version of ruby
> in Guix has priority).

It would be good to do a proper license audit of the bundled gems in
Ruby.  I see the previous version was not the Ruby license either, but
GPL, and it's not listed among the licenses.