rbenv-gemset: disable

[Rylan12]

• Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally with brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing brew install <formula>)?

---

According to the README:

License

This code is placed in the public domain by the author, Jamis Buck. Use it as you wish. Please prefer good over evil.

While unlicensed, this doesn't use the Unlicense license.

The formula is being deleted because it does not have an OSI-approved license.

See #58225 (comment) and jf/rbenv-gemset#93

[chenrui333]

Considering the unclearness of the license situation, I think we should actively disable or remove the formula.

[jonchang]

Agreed. Also see https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files

[Rylan12]

I went with removal as that's what was done for sflowtool (#58429) which was in the same situation.

Not sure if this should play into the decision at all but here is the analytics data from brew info:

==> Analytics
install: 333 (30 days), 1,091 (90 days), 4,910 (365 days)
install-on-request: 322 (30 days), 1,060 (90 days), 4,735 (365 days)
build-error: 0 (30 days)

[SMillerDev]

I'd like to disable this one. The difference is that sflowtool had a non-oss license and this has a license close, but not quite oss.

[jonchang]

Do we support NOASSERTION in our license field? It's correct according to spec and I think it would cover the cases where we think a formula is compliant with our definition of what is acceptable in Homebrew/core but otherwise is not in the SPDX license list.

[Rylan12]

I'd like to disable this one. The difference is that sflowtool had a non-oss license and this has a license close, but not quite oss.

Okay. I'll do that instead.

Do we support NOASSERTION in our license field?

I don't believe so. It might be something worth adding depending on how many formulae this would apply to.

[chenrui333]

lgtm, thanks! ❤️