taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
> + ;; The file "Copyright" points to some files and directories which aren't > + ;; under the lgpl2.0+ and instead contain many different licenses. The > + ;; comments below should exhaust those files and directories, except for > + ;; the contrib/unicode/ directory whose .lisp files have no copyright or > + ;; license notice. > + (license > + (list > + license:lgpl2.0+ ;contrib/: encodings, bytecomp, > + ;ecl-cdb, win32 > + (license:x11-style "file://src/lsp/loop2.lsp") > + license:public-domain ;src/lsp/: pprint.lsp, format.lsp, > + ;profile, serve-event, sockets > + license:expat ;contrib/: asdf, cl-simd, quicklisp > + license:x11 ;contrib/: deflate > + (license:bsd-style "file://contrib/defsystem/defsystem.lisp") > + license:bsd-2 ;contrib/: ecl-curl > + (license:x11-style "file://contrib/rt/rt.lisp") > + (license:bsd-style "file://src/clx/clx.lisp"))))) ;TI License Congratulations, indeed. :-) The intent for the ‘license’ field is mostly to describe the license of the combined work (although apparently the intent was not crystal clear.) In this case, I believe lgpl2.0+ “wins” over the other, more permissive licenses. So I would just list lgpl2.0+ (sorry about that ;-)). However it’s good to keep a note like the one you wrote above the ‘license’ field. Perhaps you could just s/many different licenses/many different, non-copyleft licenses/ ? OK to push with a change along these lines. Thank you! Ludo’.
