Alex Vong writes: > Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: > >> 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 > For your reference, Debian maintainer calls this "IBM license". [0] I > would call it a non-copyleft license with patent grant. > > [0]: > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/s/signify-openbsd/signify-openbsd_13-1_copyright
I think the question is if it's used by anything other than this particular software, to answer whether (non-copyleft) should be used or to make a new license entry. If you know of it being used somewhere else, I'd put it as its own license entry, otherwise just use (non-copyleft) I think. I'm guessing it's probably not used anywhere else, since the patent grant is pretty specific to the domain of DNS? Thanks Leo! - Chris
