On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 09:00:38AM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > Leo Famulari writes: > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 02:02:11PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > >> Efraim Flashner writes: > >> > >> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:50:53 -0700 > >> > Christopher Allan Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Leo Famulari writes: > >> >> > >> >> [...] > >> >> > >> >> Now there's a license name bound to cause some confusion! > >> >> > >> >> It looks free... I think it would be okay to push. But maybe if only > >> >> one or two packages use it it would be better to just use the > >> >> non-copyleft license option? > >> >> > >> > > >> > I went and doublechecked the license, because I've heard in the past > >> > it's not > >> > actually a copyleft license. According to wikipedia[0], it is not > >> > copyleft, > >> > but is GPL compatable, and recognized by the FSF. The language of the > >> > license > >> > does allow for not buying the author a beer. > >> > > >> > > >> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware > >> > >> It's not a copyleft license, right. That's why I suggested non-copyleft > >> :) > >> > >> For example, in unzip: > >> > >> (license (license:non-copyleft "file://LICENSE" > >> "See LICENSE in the distribution.")) > > > > I'll do whatever the consensus says. > > Okay, and again, I don't have strong opinions, just a suggestion. > > > But what about the IBM license on the base64 component of signify? What > > should I do about that? > > I don't know, could you point to what the code is and the license?
The issue is described in the cover letter: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-03/msg01097.html
