From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34594) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fF4sY-0008K9-SC for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2018 17:38:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fF4sU-0005p3-T2 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2018 17:38:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42984) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fF4sU-0005ox-P8 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2018 17:38:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fF4sU-00047O-G8 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 05 May 2018 17:38:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#31307] [PATCH] Add MAT, the Metadata Anonymisation Toolkit from Boum Resent-Message-ID: From: Chris Marusich References: <87wowrj9kq.fsf@gmail.com> <877eohrgeu.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 14:37:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: <877eohrgeu.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Sat, 05 May 2018 22:33:45 +0200") Message-ID: <87vac1eqch.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 31307@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> In addition, I notice that the license is GPL 2, but it seems the author >> did not specify whether "any later version" can be used. Therefore, I >> have listed this as gpl2, instead of gpl2+. > > Note that unless authors explicitly removed the =E2=80=9Cor any later ver= sion=E2=80=9D > phrase from license headers in source files, we write =E2=80=98gpl2+=E2= =80=99; > specifically, Section 9 of GPLv2 reads: > > If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you > may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. Upstream clarified in an email [1] that the license is GPLv2. Also, they did explicitly remove the "or any later version" part in the README.md file; I just missed that detail at first. However, there is no license embedded in the source files themselves. In this case, is is correct to add this package as GPLv2? Footnotes:=20 [1] https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/mat-dev/2018-April/000158.html =2D-=20 Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEy/WXVcvn5+/vGD+x3UCaFdgiRp0FAlruJB8ACgkQ3UCaFdgi Rp3gMRAAlgPHMs+XcELzwaAbALs/Lc2XtswDtcMoXsbjVyYulNRzXcTlwYZZLTct poVMVhe8rlkFnV5W0jMazeD5Xgb2lADKIANXupKR01wvmfStyMzFD/nMcKBfPbKl 194bBRGe31+EJBCascbhrCBF+fE4P8AYgRVdDL5cuemUBDtH9kLHZxhLch4MT+Xj d/Twc9sPfqdZbEs0OZhg8S5Z5SjqGzKWAhOefcSGvgw0tELPDKJm5e7RR88PI/D9 g95rzvWG77pHCDflU1bdgZTb+kMjQdPpCNU/OS8/OB8kzrpk/IPktYvJQJXETuiw 2hM3wogbOaafLlHE+6t7JIN6ID0FY7/Vhi62hyKuWZ87OioUMvS9Ln8ewprPpJYu iHzqeKJCkQ3IDmeGhFDmckSv0pbI5SgQDN+zqGEZ7KAqZCAtHSpLk5ATv/utvBvK rOHRrU4Qe2GyUd5lZMs3EH3qH5+dffK20uHxa7F5c048JvlmXwBpgHVbRLqw8LnS GJF2YZbqzgpbRKzQWj+KpdhstblIj7/lXcxew/opJBeJuo7Zbo+YpGhZv4WKHthZ 49mlXn5blndPMSLdPB9SNn7JcW95J/VoW9Jje80ZEXwEBmT41WAo9we9JPqZX7MU jWTTRY+uo7qYad37LWWL7fE38xXEB7lJAts2lzw6g40ciHX12co= =MCvH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--