Andreas Enge skribis:
> Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> Andreas Enge skribis:
>> > Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?
>> Yes, but it’s only for BSD-style licenses.
>
> Finally I think we agree.
Nitpicking is what I do on my spare time. ;-)
> I was suggesting to
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Andreas Enge skribis:
> > Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?
> Yes, but it’s only for BSD-style licenses.
Finally I think we agree. I was suggesting to create something analogous to
bsd-style, just with a different name. But maybe bs
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> > Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
>> It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
>
> Sort of. Except that the second clause states that source code needs to be
> provided, whereas BSD just states that binary dis
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
> It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
Sort of. Except that the second clause states that source code needs to be
provided, whereas BSD just states that binary distributions need to keep
the copy
Hi!
Andreas Enge skribis:
> The attached patch adds psutils. Its license is homebrewed:
>http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/psutils/current/copyright
> Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
> If not, would it make sense to add a li
"bsd-like"?
Andreas
From 2ed9a3862d3f120986ed40863a26a88c64f5ded7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Enge
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:26:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.
* gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm (psutils): New variable.
---
gnu/p
