[mooreds]

People can of course downvote me for whatever reason they want. I do object to you calling this an advertisement. Sure, it links to my employer's website, but it is an OSS build library that addresses licensing issues.

Yes, GIGO applies, but what about the underlying Gem? Was the XML file relicensed? (Haven't dug into that issue 97 referenced in the GH thread.)

Edit: from sibling comments, looks like this build system wouldn't have caught the underlying issue, which was a GPL licensed, unmarked file copied in.

[majewsky]

The product in question being open-source or not has nothing to do with whether it's advertising. I would have been okay with it if your product genuinely did something to solve the issue at hand, but as you admit, it does not, so all that's left is "this is a good time to mention my product".

[mooreds]

The build tool I linked to would not have solved the issue. I should have read further into the GH repos to understand how the Gem was contaminated. That's my fault.

I have thoughts on the applicability of the build tool mentioned and its relation to licensing issues in general, but I feel I'm repeating myself. I'm not sure continuing this conversation will be productive, so I'm gonna stop.