From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Bavier Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add cool-retro-term. Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:47:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20170427204754.10212a01@centurylink.net> 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> <20170426200933.45340e03@mykolab.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/t6Nk7jqKv83JOKxZyfQLI_p"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48155) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3v0z-0001PD-FD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:48:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3v0v-0004Ef-ID for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:48:09 -0400 Received: from mail.centurylink.net ([205.219.233.9]:6242 helo=smtp.centurylink.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3v0v-0004C6-9M for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:48:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170426200933.45340e03@mykolab.ch> 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: Petter Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --Sig_/t6Nk7jqKv83JOKxZyfQLI_p Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:09:33 +0200 Petter wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:36:27 -0500 > Eric Bavier wrote: >=20 > > 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. =20 >=20 > Sure, I'll do that! Thanks! >=20 > > > + (inputs > > > + `(("qt" ,qt))) =20 > >=20 > > Does this package need all of qt, or could we use the component > > packages instead? =20 >=20 > 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))))) =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? =20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > > 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.n= et/~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. =20 >=20 > Let's see if someone can shine some light on this. >=20 Leo pointed me at https://bugs.gnu.org/26588 which references https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-fu= nctional-data . I think many of these fonts would need to be stripped out or substituted because their license prohibits commercial/non-commercial redistribution. `~Eric --Sig_/t6Nk7jqKv83JOKxZyfQLI_p Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEP6ffQNOS1+XjkicBHrvSBHgfliwFAlkCn0oACgkQHrvSBHgf lizLygf/YqRuw78N3h2pfDiUzVBU8TZ3yoDny2aKBlIO5IikUojOhDYsaDSdEI0y 2BUYHEbi+5akbtmRRvAerLkvzcjpXxVOuOGl8AuCadlqrJAfqBvz/4qJiVQNr6IT lK25sN/XHX7t21I5qWwqYNdZoss4bJqyNPHMisp7IZbdxTKlad4npZTeq7QXzk+e cl872lVUz9lK5UvdhnjSptrPu+Txm8i64L0egen/M1/UizDjU/B9OMSrjAr2kUa8 qIe1uNfztgmhR8SVaZEb7LxxKgtTHatfFToCE0RJMyQk8E1/qAVlqV9eggOnwQlj 1kTZCSEQJ65EnVs+F1o20igA3isZTg== =KEi9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/t6Nk7jqKv83JOKxZyfQLI_p--