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."))