From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54371) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDHTm-0007TX-7q for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:41:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDHTi-0008F8-Tb for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:41:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:36534) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDHTi-0008F2-O6 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:41:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDHTi-0004rQ-9N for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:41:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#31322] [PATCH 3/6] gnu: Add poppler-data. Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <6118003bb1f4b53553ad35703229649e1c361f6b.1525120717.git.leo@famulari.name> References: <0a0b7de7e941986f0d1d6ce65c6ea7aaaa8d5952.1525120717.git.leo@famulari.name> <6118003bb1f4b53553ad35703229649e1c361f6b.1525120717.git.leo@famulari.name> Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 00:40:24 +0200 Message-ID: <871sewuxlz.fsf@fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Leo Famulari , 31322@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Leo Famulari 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 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+? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlrnm1gACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPpiewf+Kdajrl5Zou4cmetf1slVljL9Zq/7MuAjeL5dWgpW4cdxLhQnei9xNWSd g6vlorcAPhWFufhlKIJmMr6i95bYK9nK6qYDsbAYNtlZU0SX/999CEAUENTyZl37 DqgKmDFcGcEUTP1heMXWlom3X4w9y0i7dbe9bs+i++6yrrf5rQk1t734sYlilqa5 1e25kOsfLoGg+Xw5WrZjeYWNxYfWOWv+8OWcxAoabTSyGc3sGTXaEG5GAHmRAuqs 9nTka/wHskHooNKJP5gQlp81xzPx9ZogvFnou56W7b4vutW9OOQ/0v0X//T2R2OS TJRpzo/TvYDdO48f8gc82BUsVtxnwA== =I0Bv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--