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