On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:36:27 -0500
Eric Bavier <ericbavier@centurylink.net> wrote:

> Could you ping the developer about porting some of these fixes to their
> fork?  I think we'd want to create a local patch for at least the first
> commit.  The others could wait for a new release.

Sure, I'll do that!

> > +    (inputs
> > +     `(("qt" ,qt)))  
> 
> Does this package need all of qt, or could we use the component
> packages instead?

I don't know. I'll do some experiments and see.

> > +    (synopsis "Terminal emulator mimicking old cathode ray tube (CRT)
> > +screens")  
> 
> I'd like to shorten this to "Terminal emulator"

Ok.

> > +    (description
> > +     "Cool-retro-term (crt) is a terminal emulator which mimics the
> > look and +feel of the old cathode ray tube (CRT) screens.  It has been
> > designed to be +eye-candy, customizable, and reasonably lightweight.")
> > +    (home-page "https://github.com/Swordfish90/cool-retro-term")
> > +    (license (list license:gpl2 license:gpl3)))))  
> 
> The license seems unclear: 1) there is both a gpl-2.txt and gpl-3.txt
> in $topsrcdir, but no mention of which actually applies in any of the
> source files, 2) $topsrcdir/packaging/debian/copyright claims GPL-3,
> while 4) $topsrcdir/packaging/rpm/cool-retro-term.spec and
> $topsrcdir/packaging/appdata/cool-retro-term.appdata.xml both claim
> GPL-3.0+, and 5) the qmltermwidget component appears to be under
> gpl2+.  IANAL but this suggests license:gpl2+ to me.  Does that seem
> right?

I can't answer this, hopefully someone else will chime in.

> It would not hurt to also list the SIL license, for
> $topsrcdir/app/qml/fonts/modern-hermit, and the X11 license for
> fonts/modern-pro-font-win-tweaked and fonts/modern-proggy-tiny.
> 
> The fonts/modern-envy-code-r font probably needs to be stripped; it's
> license is non-free; from 'Read Me.txt':
> 
>   "Free to use but redistribution prohibited."
> 
> and the fonts/1977-apple2, fonts/1977-commodore-pet, probably also needs
> to be stripped as non-free; from 'FreeLicense.txt':
> 
>   "1. The User may not sell copies of the Software for a fee."
> 
> The fonts/1979-atari-400-800 font seems to be non-free license, which is
> not mentioned in the 'ReadMe.rtf' but only on the WayBack Machine at
> https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20080907111008/http://www2.bitstream.net/~marksim/atarimac/fonts.html :
> 
>   "These fonts are freeware and may not be offered for sale seperately
>   or as part of a collection."
> 
> The fonts/1982-commodore64 font is licensed under non-free terms; see
> fonts/1982-commodore64/license.txt
> 
> The only mention of a license for fonts/1985-ibm-pc-vga is at
> http://www.dafont.com/font-comment.php?file=perfect_dos_vga_437 where
> the author says "The license is this: this font is free to use in
> whatever you want.", but that probably "doesn't count".
> 
> I could not find license info for a few of the other fonts.
> 
> OTOH I recall a discussion on IRC recently about fonts embedded in
> packages being treated as non-functional data, and thus OK from a FSDG
> perspective.  But I would want verification on that.

Let's see if someone can shine some light on this.

> Sorry for the dump.  I'd like to work these things out; it looks like a
> fun terminal to use.

No problem, there's the right way and there's the not-right way!
Let's do it right! :)

Best,
Petter