vid Craven wrote:
> I found a promising package to help with license auditing. It's not
> perfect judging from the bug reports, but it seems pretty nice. It is
> the only option I found which is intended for scripted usage (has a
> nice cli interface). I'll package it tomorrow.
vid Craven wrote:
> I found a promising package to help with license auditing. It's not
> perfect judging from the bug reports, but it seems pretty nice. It is
> the only option I found which is intended for scripted usage (has a
> nice cli interface). I'll package it tomorrow.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016, at 09:23 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Strictly speaking it’s wrong, but I think it better reflects the intent
> of the authors (I think authors who throw a GPLv3 ‘COPYING’ file without
> bothering to add file headers probably think that GPLv3 and maybe later
> versions apply, b
Hi,
Alex Griffin skribis:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016, at 03:42 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> However, in Guix we encode such cases as ‘gpl3+’ (or similar), rather
>> than ‘gpl1+’.
>
> That seems wrong and confusing.
Strictly speaking it’s wrong, but I think it better reflects the intent
of the autho
I found a promising package to help with license auditing. It's not
perfect judging from the bug reports, but it seems pretty nice. It is
the only option I found which is intended for scripted usage (has a
nice cli interface). I'll package it tomorrow. Interesting would be to
write a
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016, at 03:42 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> However, in Guix we encode such cases as ‘gpl3+’ (or similar), rather
> than ‘gpl1+’.
That seems wrong and confusing. It means that if I'm writing a GPLv2
program, for example, then I cannot rely on Guix to search for legally
compatible li
Howdy!
Leo Famulari skribis:
> I've heard that if the only license information is a copy of the full
> license (for example, in LICENSE or COPYING) and the files have no
> license headers, then the "or later" part is implied, but I'm not sure.
In reality, the GNU licenses permit the recipient t
> There could also be binaries with no source code, some code with a
> unique license, or countless other ways to confuse a license parser.
Well we do have a sizeable existing test-suite so that's a plus...
> "...either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later
> version."
That a
>> How can I tell the difference between a lgpl2.1 and lgpl2.1+ license?
>"or later"
Yes, I get that, but does it explicitly say the words "or latter" in the license
text? What about when there are lgpl2, lgpl2.1 and lgpl3 license files in
the repo? Is that (list lgpl2.0 lgpl2.1 lgpl3) or lgpl2.0+
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:55:11PM +0200, Danny Milosavljevic wrote:
> A human would still have to review the non-1:1 things - there could
> always be strange exceptions in the README or whatever - but the
> majority of cases should work just fine.
There could also be binaries with no source code,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 06:28:38PM +0200, David Craven wrote:
> Hi!
>
> How can I tell the difference between a lgpl2.1 and lgpl2.1+ license?
The license headers in the source files will say if they are licensed
under version 2.1 or later. Something like this:
"...either version 2.1 of the Licen
Something like this could be quite convenient.
The following spdx->guix license symbol converter
might save you some time:
http://paste.lisp.org/display/322105
- Jelle
2016-08-03 19:55 GMT+02:00 Danny Milosavljevic :
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:28:38 +0200
> David Craven wrote:
>
> > How can I
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:28:38 +0200
David Craven wrote:
> How can I tell the difference between a lgpl2.1 and lgpl2.1+ license?
"or later"
> Is this a job that an automated tool could do? Detecting licenses
> included in a tarball?
I also wonder about that. Usually, the license text is just copi
Hi!
How can I tell the difference between a lgpl2.1 and lgpl2.1+ license?
Is this a job that an automated tool could do? Detecting licenses
included in a tarball?
Cheers
David
14 matches
Mail list logo
