[PATCH 0/3] Adding libbsd and signify

[PATCH 0/3] Adding libbsd and signify

[Leo Famulari]

This adds libbsd [0] and a port [1] of OpenBSD's signify tool. [2]

I couldn't figure out where to put libbsd so I made a new module, but
I'm open to advice.

There is one more thing to be resolved: What should I do about the
unusual license from IBM [3] on base64.c? [4]

I searched the net, and all the references I found to this license are
other instances of this base64 C implementation. It doesn't seem to have
been used elsewhere. Advice?

[0]
<https://libbsd.freedesktop.org/wiki/>

[1]
<https://github.com/aperezdc/signify>

[2]
<http://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan-signify.html>

[3]
/*
 * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 by International Business Machines, Inc.
 *
 * International Business Machines, Inc. (hereinafter called IBM) grants
 * permission under its copyrights to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
 * Software with or without fee, provided that the above copyright notice and
 * all paragraphs of this notice appear in all copies, and that the name of IBM
 * not be used in connection with the marketing of any product incorporating
 * the Software or modifications thereof, without specific, written prior
 * permission.
 *
 * To the extent it has a right to do so, IBM grants an immunity from suit
 * under its patents, if any, for the use, sale or manufacture of products to
 * the extent that such products are used for performing Domain Name System
 * dynamic updates in TCP/IP networks by means of the Software.  No immunity is
 * granted for any product per se or for any other function of any product.
 *
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", AND IBM DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES,
 * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
 * PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  IN NO EVENT SHALL IBM BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
 * DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER ARISING
 * OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN
 * IF IBM IS APPRISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
 */

[4]
<https://github.com/aperezdc/signify/blob/master/base64.c>

Leo Famulari (3):
  licenses: Add beerware license.
  gnu: Add libbsd.
  gnu: Add signify.

 gnu-system.am           |  1 +
 gnu/packages/crypto.scm | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 gnu/packages/libbsd.scm | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 guix/licenses.scm       |  6 ++++++
 4 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 gnu/packages/libbsd.scm

-- 
2.7.3

[PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Leo Famulari]

* guix/licenses.scm (beerware): New variable.
---
 guix/licenses.scm | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm
index 71c0736..9d5335b 100644
--- a/guix/licenses.scm
+++ b/guix/licenses.scm
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
   #:export (license? license-name license-uri license-comment
             agpl3 agpl3+
             asl1.1 asl2.0
+            beerware
             boost1.0
             bsd-2 bsd-3 bsd-4
             non-copyleft
@@ -110,6 +111,11 @@
            "http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0"
            "https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list#apache2"))
 
+(define beerware
+  (license "Beerware"
+           "http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/" ; Scroll down
+           "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Beerware"))
+
 (define boost1.0
   (license "Boost 1.0"
            "http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Boost1.0"
-- 
2.7.3

Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Leo Famulari writes:

> +(define beerware
> +  (license "Beerware"
> +           "http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/" ; Scroll down
> +           "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Beerware"))
> +

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?

Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 923 bytes --]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:50:53 -0700
Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@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

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Efraim Flashner writes:

> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:50:53 -0700
> Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@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."))

Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Leo Famulari]

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 <cwebber@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.

But what about the IBM license on the base64 component of signify? What
should I do about that?

Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Christopher Allan Webber]

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 <cwebber@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?

Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Leo Famulari]

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 <cwebber@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

Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Alex Vong]

Leo Famulari <leo@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 <cwebber@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

Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Alex Vong writes:

> Leo Famulari <leo@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 <cwebber@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

I think the question is if it's used by anything other than this
particular software, to answer whether (non-copyleft) should be used or
to make a new license entry.  If you know of it being used somewhere
else, I'd put it as its own license entry, otherwise just use
(non-copyleft) I think.

I'm guessing it's probably not used anywhere else, since the patent
grant is pretty specific to the domain of DNS?

Thanks Leo!
 - Chris

Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> skribis:

> I think the question is if it's used by anything other than this
> particular software, to answer whether (non-copyleft) should be used or
> to make a new license entry.  If you know of it being used somewhere
> else, I'd put it as its own license entry, otherwise just use
> (non-copyleft) I think.
>
> I'm guessing it's probably not used anywhere else, since the patent
> grant is pretty specific to the domain of DNS?

I agree, I think it makes sense to use ‘non-copyleft’ for these two
licenses.

Ludo’.

[PATCH 2/3] gnu: Add libbsd.

[Leo Famulari]

* gnu/packages/libbsd.scm: New file.
* gnu-system.am (GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES): Add it.
---
 gnu-system.am           |  1 +
 gnu/packages/libbsd.scm | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 gnu/packages/libbsd.scm

diff --git a/gnu-system.am b/gnu-system.am
index 6cdc1e3..38b6a37 100644
--- a/gnu-system.am
+++ b/gnu-system.am
@@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES =				\
   gnu/packages/lego.scm				\
   gnu/packages/less.scm				\
   gnu/packages/lesstif.scm			\
+  gnu/packages/libbsd.scm			\
   gnu/packages/libcanberra.scm			\
   gnu/packages/libdaemon.scm			\
   gnu/packages/libedit.scm			\
diff --git a/gnu/packages/libbsd.scm b/gnu/packages/libbsd.scm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..78efafc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gnu/packages/libbsd.scm
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
+;;; Copyright © 2016 Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
+;;;
+;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
+;;;
+;;; GNU Guix is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+;;; under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+;;; the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at
+;;; your option) any later version.
+;;;
+;;; GNU Guix is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+;;; WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+;;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+;;; GNU General Public License for more details.
+;;;
+;;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+;;; along with GNU Guix.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+
+(define-module (gnu packages libbsd)
+  #:use-module (guix build-system gnu)
+  #:use-module (guix download)
+  #:use-module (guix licenses)
+  #:use-module (guix packages))
+
+(define-public libbsd
+  (package
+    (name "libbsd")
+    (version "0.8.2")
+    (source (origin
+              (method url-fetch)
+              (uri (string-append "https://libbsd.freedesktop.org/releases/"
+                                  "libbsd-" version ".tar.xz"))
+              (sha256
+               (base32
+                "02i5brb2007sxq3mn862mr7yxxm0g6nj172417hjyvjax7549xmj"))))
+    (build-system gnu-build-system)
+    (synopsis "Utility functions from BSD systems")
+    (description "This library provides useful functions commonly found on BSD
+systems, and lacking on others like GNU systems, thus making it easier to port
+projects with strong BSD origins, without needing to embed the same code over
+and over again on each project.")
+    (home-page "https://libbsd.freedesktop.org/wiki/")
+    (license (list bsd-2 bsd-3 bsd-4 bsd-style expat isc public-domain))))
-- 
2.7.3

Re: [PATCH 2/3] gnu: Add libbsd.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

> * gnu/packages/libbsd.scm: New file.
> * gnu-system.am (GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES): Add it.

I lost track of the discussion, but it’d be sad if simple packages like
this were stuck in review forever.  :-)

In general, for simple additions like this, consider yourself entitled
to push after some time has passed, as noted in ‘HACKING’.

[...]

> +(define-public libbsd
> +  (package
> +    (name "libbsd")
> +    (version "0.8.2")
> +    (source (origin
> +              (method url-fetch)
> +              (uri (string-append "https://libbsd.freedesktop.org/releases/"
> +                                  "libbsd-" version ".tar.xz"))
> +              (sha256
> +               (base32
> +                "02i5brb2007sxq3mn862mr7yxxm0g6nj172417hjyvjax7549xmj"))))
> +    (build-system gnu-build-system)
> +    (synopsis "Utility functions from BSD systems")
> +    (description "This library provides useful functions commonly found on BSD
> +systems, and lacking on others like GNU systems, thus making it easier to port
> +projects with strong BSD origins, without needing to embed the same code over
> +and over again on each project.")
> +    (home-page "https://libbsd.freedesktop.org/wiki/")
> +    (license (list bsd-2 bsd-3 bsd-4 bsd-style expat isc public-domain))))

Please mention in a comment above what this license list means: is it at
the user’s choice, a mixture of all, etc.  Note that ‘bsd-style’ is a
procedure, and is deprecated (‘guix lint’ should warn.)

Otherwise LGTM, thanks!

Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH 2/3] gnu: Add libbsd.

[Leo Famulari]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:19:24PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
> 
> > * gnu/packages/libbsd.scm: New file.
> > * gnu-system.am (GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES): Add it.
> 
> I lost track of the discussion, but it’d be sad if simple packages like
> this were stuck in review forever.  :-)

I decided to spend a little time auditing the differences between this
source code and what is in OpenBSD, but I hadn't had the time to do it
yet.

It won't be a *real* security audit; I'm not qualified to do that. But I
think I should at least read the differences and see what they are.

[PATCH 3/3] gnu: Add signify.

[Leo Famulari]

* gnu/packages/crypto.scm (signify): New variable.
---
 gnu/packages/crypto.scm | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/crypto.scm b/gnu/packages/crypto.scm
index a8d675b..56e2a90 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/crypto.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/crypto.scm
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 ;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
 ;;; Copyright © 2014 David Thompson <davet@gnu.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2015 Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
+;;; Copyright © 2016 Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -19,6 +20,8 @@
 
 (define-module (gnu packages crypto)
   #:use-module (gnu packages)
+  #:use-module (gnu packages pkg-config)
+  #:use-module (gnu packages libbsd)
   #:use-module (guix licenses)
   #:use-module (guix packages)
   #:use-module (guix download)
@@ -46,3 +49,35 @@
 communication, encryption, decryption, signatures, etc.")
     (license isc)
     (home-page "http://libsodium.org")))
+
+(define-public signify
+  (package
+    (name "signify")
+    (version "17")
+    (source (origin
+              (method url-fetch)
+              (uri (string-append "https://github.com/aperezdc/signify/"
+                                  "archive/v" version ".tar.gz"))
+              (sha256
+               (base32
+                "0kfv2k1fqck31vwlnicavb0h541ilad9zd7j8zz8x2kx36wwqpr7"))))
+    (build-system gnu-build-system)
+    ;; TODO Build with libwaive (described in README.md), to implement something
+    ;; like OpenBSD's pledge().
+    (arguments
+     `(#:make-flags
+       (list "CC=gcc"
+             (string-append "PREFIX=" (assoc-ref %outputs "out")))
+       #:phases
+       (modify-phases %standard-phases
+         (delete 'configure)
+         (delete 'check)))) ; no test suite
+    (native-inputs
+     `(("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)))
+    (inputs
+     `(("libbsd" ,libbsd)))
+    (synopsis "Create and verify cryptographic signatures")
+    (description "The signify utility creates and verifies cryptographic
+signatures using the elliptic curve Ed25519.")
+    (home-page "https://github.com/aperezdc/signify")
+    (license (list bsd-3 bsd-4 isc public-domain)))) ; FIXME: IBM license on base64.c?
-- 
2.7.3

Re: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: Add signify.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

> * gnu/packages/crypto.scm (signify): New variable.

[...]

> +    (synopsis "Create and verify cryptographic signatures")
> +    (description "The signify utility creates and verifies cryptographic
> +signatures using the elliptic curve Ed25519.")
> +    (home-page "https://github.com/aperezdc/signify")
> +    (license (list bsd-3 bsd-4 isc public-domain)))) ; FIXME: IBM license on base64.c?

Please comment on the meaning of this list.  As discussed with Alex
Vong, ‘non-copyleft’ would probably capture “the IBM license” well
enough.

Otherwise OK, thanks!  :-)

Ludo’.