From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Bavier Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] gnu: Add ttf2eot. Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:49:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20160407224900.087b4ee8@openmailbox.org> References: <1459917181-19626-1-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> <1459917181-19626-3-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> <20160407062435.GC17216@debian-netbook> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45322) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aoNQ7-0006tV-9B for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 23:49:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aoNQ3-0006SA-5E for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 23:49:19 -0400 Received: from mail2.openmailbox.org ([62.4.1.33]:43808) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aoNQ2-0006Ry-VU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 23:49:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160407062435.GC17216@debian-netbook> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Efraim Flashner Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Eric Bavier On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:24:35 +0300 Efraim Flashner wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:32:55PM -0500, ericbavier@openmailbox.org wrote: > > From: Eric Bavier > > > > * gnu/packages/fontutils.scm (ttf2eot): New variable. > > * gnu/packages/patches/ttf2eot-cstddef.patch: New patch. > > * gnu-system.am (dist_patch_DATA): Add it. [...] > > + (license license:bsd-2) > > Issue 30[0] says that the readme says its bsd/lgpl licensed. [...] > > [0] https://code.google.com/archive/p/ttf2eot/issues/30 I recall now: I listed bsd-2 as the license, because, while the README says "License: Derived from WebKit, so BSD/LGPL 2/LGPL 2.1", the single derived source file includes only BSD in its license header, and the wrapper source contains no license header at all. Does this seem alright? `~Eric