Thank you for your review.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 02:16:00PM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote:
>On 2015-03-12 19:57, Tomáš Čech wrote:
>>* gnu/packages/task.scm: New file.
>>* gnu-system.am (GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES): Add new file here.
>>---
>> gnu-system.am         |  1 +
>> gnu/packages/task.scm | 68 
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>[...]
>>+    (inputs
>>+     `(("util-linux" ,util-linux)
>>+       ("gnutls" ,gnutls)
>>+       ("lua" ,lua)
>>+       ("coreutils" ,coreutils)))
>
>Can coreutils be left out here, since it is an implicit input?

OK, I will omit it.

>
>>+    ;; Taskwarrior is licensed under MIT license, which is 
>>identical to
>>+    ;; Expat License
>>+    (license license:expat)))
>
>Is it actually the Expat license, or the X11 license, which is also
>sometimes called the "MIT license"?  In either case, I would perhaps 
>put quotation marks around "MIT license" to indicate the ambiguity.

I did comparison and it is Expat license as intended in
(guix licenses).

X11 license has aditional paragraph on use of trademarks.

You can have a look here to make your opinion:

https://git.tasktools.org/projects/TM/repos/task/browse/COPYING

I'm not lawyer and I don't feel like authority in this area but

1] I believe that intention of authors is obvious with the URL in the
   end of file. They choose MIT as their license, they used
   opensource.org license list to express their will. And I respect
   their choice.

2] MIT license is also recognized by spdx.org
   https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT

   In my experience openSUSE, Gentoo uses the same license name, Debian
   at least mentions Expat (https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/mit).

So I'd rather not put quotation marks around "MIT license". I'd even like
to have MIT license as alias or separate license.

Best regards,

S_W