Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes:
> Hi Jack, > > Jack Hill <jackh...@jackhill.us> writes: > >> I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for Guix. To >> build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license: >> >> ``` >> This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program. >> >> License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it >> freely, as long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications >> are clearly marked. >> >> ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED. >> ``` >> >> Which license is this? > > Thanks very much for your diligence here. > > I looked into it, and Debian calls this the "Perforce" license. The > "copyright" file for Debian's 'boost' package includes the following > lines: > > License: Perforce > License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it > freely, as long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications > are clearly marked. > . > ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED. > > <https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/b/boost1.67/boost1.67_1.67.0-13+deb10u1_copyright> > > Maybe this should be added to (guix licenses) as 'perforce', or perhaps > 'perforce-jam'? Unless that license is commonly used enough, I would rather not bloat the licenses list in Guix and instead use the non-copyleft procedure to define it on the spot, if needed. Does that make sense? Maxim