On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:09:33 +0200
Petter <petter@mykolab.ch> wrote:

> 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!

Thanks!

> 
> > > +    (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.

OK, great.

> > > +    (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.

I did a little more looking: The sources in app/qml seem to have
license headers marked as GPLv3+, so we can mark it as such.

> 
> > 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.
> 

Leo pointed me at https://bugs.gnu.org/26588 which references
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-functional-data .
I think many of these fonts would need to be stripped out or
substituted because their license prohibits commercial/non-commercial
redistribution.

`~Eric