From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: License auditing Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:05:06 -0400 Message-ID: <20160803180506.GB11621@jasmine> References: <20160803195511.3f55fc92@scratchpost.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36410) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bV0Xg-0000HW-CY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:05:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bV0Xd-0007k8-7c for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:05:20 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:54526) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bV0Xa-0007gq-UY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:05:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160803195511.3f55fc92@scratchpost.org> 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: Danny Milosavljevic Cc: guix-devel , David Craven On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:55:11PM +0200, Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > A human would still have to review the non-1:1 things - there could > always be strange exceptions in the README or whatever - but the > majority of cases should work just fine. There could also be binaries with no source code, some code with a unique license, or countless other ways to confuse a license parser.