Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:50:10 +0800
> 宋文武 <iyzs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes:
>>
>> > * gnu/packages/mp3.scm (eyed3): New variable.
>> > ---
>> > gnu/packages/mp3.scm | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>> > [...]
>> > + (license license:gpl2)))
>> The sources have "any later version", so it's 'gpl2+'.
>
> The website says: "eyeD3 is written and maintained by Travis Shirk and is
> licensed under version 2 of the GPL." And that is backed up by the COPYING
> file in the mercurial repo: https://bitbucket.org/nicfit/eyed3/src. Upon
> checking the actual source files, it does indeed say "(at your option) any
> later version", so it looks like I was mislead by not finding that wording in
> the COPYING file.
I suppose it's not widely known, but what really matters is the copying
permission notices in the files themselves. So indeed, this should be
gpl2+.
>> eyeD3 is both a tool and python library, I wonder whether
>> 'python-eyed3' fits better.
>
> 'python-eyed3' is probably a better name. I wonder perhaps as a python
> library it should be in python.scm instead of mp3.scm. Anyone have a
> suggestion on that front?
If it includes a library, then I think it should be named
'python-eyed3'. This is our usual convention, and it has the advantage
that we can add 'python2-eyed3' later, in case someone wants it.
Also, your mail client seems to have applied word-wrapping to the patch,
so some of the "+" signs have been wrapped into the description. This
is what I see:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
+ (description
+ "Eyed3 is a command-line editor to add/edit/remove ID3-tags on mp3
files. +It supports version 1.0, 1.1, 2.3 and 2.4 of the ID3 standard.
Additionally it +displays several information about the file such as length
and bitrate from an +MP3 file.")
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
This makes it difficult for us to apply it, since we'd have to fix it up
by hand. Can you persuade your mail client to avoid word-wrapping? You
could make it an attachment if needed.
Thanks!
Mark
