From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Craven Subject: Re: License auditing Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 20:15:30 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20160803195511.3f55fc92@scratchpost.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39142) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bV0hf-0005Ew-Pm for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:15:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bV0ha-0001ae-S4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:15:39 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-x232.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::232]:33425) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bV0hZ-0001aC-AT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:15:34 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-x232.google.com with SMTP id r9so235415215ywg.0 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 11:15:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: Danny Milosavljevic , Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel > There could also be binaries with no source code, some code with a > unique license, or countless other ways to confuse a license parser. Well we do have a sizeable existing test-suite so that's a plus... > "...either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later > version." That answers my question thank you!