Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

> * gnu/packages/pdf.scm (poppler-data): New variable.

[...]

> +    (home-page "")

(package-home-page poppler)

> +    ;; See COPYING in the source distribution for more information about
> +    ;; the licensing.
> +    (license (list license:non-copyleft
> +                   license:gpl2))))

Note: non-copyleft is a procedure that takes a URI and a comment.

Maybe something along these lines?

(license:non-copyleft "file://COPYING.adobe" "cMap data files are under
a three-clause BSD-like license.")

Or maybe just BSD-3, it only differs from the template in this text:

...IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE...

instead of the template (from Wikipedia):

...IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> BE LIABLE...

I don't know how widespread this difference is, or if the added wording
has any consequences (sounds like it might).  Could we go with BSD-3?

Also, since it is never specified that it's GPL2 only, maybe we should
use GPL2+?