From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petter Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add cool-retro-term. Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:09:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20170426200933.45340e03@mykolab.ch> References: <20170423135526.5ed9d143@mykolab.ch> <87inlvhr0y.fsf@gmail.com> <20170423231207.4adb15e7@mykolab.ch> <87vapuwvj0.fsf@gmail.com> <20170424143026.53563696@mykolab.ch> <20170425223627.47d5a3fc@centurylink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/d.2mlEiZ.FFOhnQm6CfXv+I"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60595) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3RNz-0000rn-MP for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:09:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3RNv-0001DX-Uu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:09:55 -0400 Received: from mx.kolabnow.com ([95.128.36.1]:37922 helo=mx-out03.mykolab.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3RNv-0001Cl-Jj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:09:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170425223627.47d5a3fc@centurylink.net> 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: Eric Bavier Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --Sig_/d.2mlEiZ.FFOhnQm6CfXv+I Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:36:27 -0500 Eric Bavier 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))) =20 >=20 > 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") =20 >=20 > 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))))) =20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > The fonts/modern-envy-code-r font probably needs to be stripped; it's > license is non-free; from 'Read Me.txt': >=20 > "Free to use but redistribution prohibited." >=20 > and the fonts/1977-apple2, fonts/1977-commodore-pet, probably also needs > to be stripped as non-free; from 'FreeLicense.txt': >=20 > "1. The User may not sell copies of the Software for a fee." >=20 > 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 : >=20 > "These fonts are freeware and may not be offered for sale seperately > or as part of a collection." >=20 > The fonts/1982-commodore64 font is licensed under non-free terms; see > fonts/1982-commodore64/license.txt >=20 > The only mention of a license for fonts/1985-ibm-pc-vga is at > http://www.dafont.com/font-comment.php?file=3Dperfect_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". >=20 > I could not find license info for a few of the other fonts. >=20 > 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 --Sig_/d.2mlEiZ.FFOhnQm6CfXv+I Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEB+Ude/iUmL3PehPCvgTmz6aYnSEFAlkA4l0ACgkQvgTmz6aY nSEBEw//WLMqivZX8yVG8qdFOsLbGZoDtIcwul8SgqQxOZOE6fk68kQ8duIRnXKB w+jtaByIQ05xV+PvgZwjEGJybu+xJqd6xza5sL+mBN2Dzb24lj/XJlo02ttlB/Aj 705mD8hKzJgY3pFMZePi4nbnFYpS2D9DY3GEMcuMcIEI7MXwC9CW0LSVkGOQ0+Bt kXd4Ssk4elOOGRY+6ISe23ydQmUWlXWmei/xhSJLFX65XTOi3qtrNn/JrQSUsrgc zS3UX34DZUzTfXDREpRGBxHVmyCmIBJgpLhrFgrTghZCKtx7ySDSPRTuNSl+hiVD Wdx4RzXBbYuwCbsYxr/ow0D+xX9GcdCSm6CGkRGqPm07AL0ujJt7KhozRSa2w295 sj1w2HgJF84r2jZIDkrB26TVxa3s8RiYR1eD1gmix/MRUpDpGDl3udJwhUNd8Wi8 LT2yRvUnQNR5bAIaQQGKvqhdG777wLX/XIY+nKbqg/IoSqqnohtQ21Aa9tykzMyl +xlJ9FQkaUVvPaaXaBkpBYI612IbXH/puEOUMM9wJ7GVSXyW/gDSY/jbAjh5Sg61 T+ePPY+zEAqTdac8CGJx9xa9NL2tAOqh8dSLgk+hWaefV9vK8jr7gz1oezu818TY s6q8VZbhjawgrCKQTnG4JgDWArjcvxLnuk23hOPogYo7sgsFqLc= =bM+6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/d.2mlEiZ.FFOhnQm6CfXv+I--