From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Marusich Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] gnu: Add python-paramunittest Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:32:11 -0700 Message-ID: <8737dzty10.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20170326092335.3912-1-fredmanglis@gmail.com> <20170326092335.3912-3-fredmanglis@gmail.com> <20170326151249.GC13943@monza> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34904) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csHdy-0000Aw-Ar for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:32:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csHdx-00012J-7C for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:32:18 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-x236.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c05::236]:34480) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csHdx-000127-1n for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:32:17 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 21so21965133pgg.1 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:32:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Frederick Muriithi's message of "Sun, 26 Mar 2017 18:47:00 +0300") 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: Frederick Muriithi Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Frederick Muriithi writes: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Pjotr Prins = wrote: >> This package does not actually have an OSI approved license that I can >> tell. We should contact the authors. >> > > From PyPi (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ParamUnittest/0.2) the license > is indicated as BSD. I have also cloned the repository and looked at > setup.py, where the license field is defined as: > > 'License :: OSI Approved :: BSD License' > > If this is not enough, I could start an Issue requesting a 'LICENSE' > file be added. Since the term "BSD License" is ambiguous it would be good to ask. If they mean the original BSD license, then this is free software, so it is OK to add it, but it would also mean that the license is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It would be useful to know which license they mean. The best way for them to do that is to include the text of the license in the source tree. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html =2D-=20 Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEy/WXVcvn5+/vGD+x3UCaFdgiRp0FAljYT3sACgkQ3UCaFdgi Rp2OJA/+Py4YRVC7j7iXafDn9oiBVHW3KLgUwFEMz9U6lB6WXkW7Nr4Zn5oOgvXW vkgG9MeblRMgBBtqvaARwubvMKU+BzGq1mXT77/pYe2JpYB9rw0uaomxkgXdkXae eF/Kgdv7sVv9XLn60pOnLGwsfymbauRyqyfSRtT3mdOhl1naxJmndZUsCYb8V1Ok tw0JlJ1HvG5SKSKi1wEKfZ1tPrUp9LD8qR/86XmGRL8tCIjLQLhORWhofXq+eMdO vcU17JAdClyk8N7y5qm9JIxK6gxxeQ8nSmER53mrb72Y2guUkcyoMrD7idqrmAnh FhKc1GxIBKuRfsYQCOxHY44UmAkx/R0zNtMcim3pHBjE2KW5QEaMo3BqUPu5eLiW MlfYMDKCQig3IN6KfMaXkZrTAxu07KVcTgo+ABf8AcCvHTxqTvPFtH7pUwhX11uv Tv6zhZLXr4+iV8WmQGNXywLjiuJRxSsaiKRjI0BwxhJ0V/NIDL3I+LcTN1aFFhql 6OYIiKYU0ZcKGCVEMcF/ToZ8FqicyeJPIHjUNLpbX8V6oIx8yvNZKBjofjJZxqdI VWilmbQk6AlfVm43hxdKbl6k9L0VAMRLr6tYFMEjrhsDTlTskC76XPqv4TWNT6tz j8bMnptKK8gMAv1NDgqwHYtPgr4ZZ5wK1oNo/WkvmpXwDIyXEKY= =nSQL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--