Kasumi Hanazuki

I rebased this patch and filed a PR in the upstream repository. https://github.com/ruby/resolv/pull/48

Another use case in resolv: https://github.com/ruby/rbs/pull/1655 We could type `Resolv::DNS::Resource::Generic.create(65280, 1).new('data').data` as `String` if we could write the following type definitions: ``` class Resolv::DNS::Resource::Generic < Resolv::DNS::Resource def self.create: (Integer type_value,...

> ```rbs > class Resolv::DNS::Resource::Generic < Resolv::DNS::Resource > def self.create: [T < singleton(Generic)] (Integer type_value, Integer class_value) -> T > end > ``` > > (`singleton(Generic)` cannot be written as...

#34 fixed `#native`. #31 fixed `#ipv4_mapped`. `#ipv4_compat` still returns an inconsistent mask. As it's been deprecated (in IETF and in this library), I don't think we need to maintain it....

#18 also tried to resolve this issue regarding netmask conversion in a consistent way.

+1 to merge. I'm not the maintainer and cannot merge or approve PRs. What do you think, @sorah @nobu?

Because the Ruby license is incompatible with BSD-2-Clause (it's more permissive than BSD-2-Clause), we need all the contributors' agreement to incorporate the works of this project into ruby/ruby and ship...

> ruby/resolv is "Ruby OR BSD-2-Clause dual license" now from this repository created. No. The Resolv library was licensed under the dual license **at the moment** it was extracted from...

So, my argument is that the problem is in the unclarity of the license itself, not just the LICENSE file.

To clarify the license, I think we can either: 1. Switch ruby/resolv to Ruby OR BSD-2-Clause dual license as ruby/ruby, by obtaining consent from all the contributors since the repository...