l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Congratulations, indeed. :-)
>
> The intent for the ‘license’ field is mostly to describe the license of
> the combined work (although apparently the intent was not crystal
> clear.)
>
> In this case, I believe lgpl2.0+ “wins” over the other, more permissi
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
> It would be neat to have a page sequentially listing all the licenses we
> support, with some short notice on each highlighting its distinguishing
> features. I had to visit all the separate FSF wiki pages linked from
> guix/lice
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
> +;; The file "Copyright" points to some files and directories which aren't
> +;; under the lgpl2.0+ and instead contain many different licenses. The
> +;; comments below should exhaust those files and directories, exc
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:17:50AM +0100, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
> > Yowza! I appreciate you being so thorough, but this may be a bit over
> > the top :) I'd like to hear what Ludovic thinks before okaying a push.
I think there is no problem in pushing the p
Mark H Weaver writes:
> In general, it's probably better to avoid unnecessary rearrangements
> like this, since it will tend to cause conflicts when other people have
> pending patches in the same module.
OK, I undid that.
> Our convention is to write (version-major+minor version) since it
> re
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> The license declaration of this recipe is noteworthy. I diligently
> commented about the places each license appears in, from the non-LGPL2
> places mentioned in the "Copyright" file, so as to make it easier to
> verify nothing ha
