From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Boskovits?= Subject: Re: xkblayout-state Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:53:56 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87fu3ij2a3.fsf@gmail.com> <20180426184319.GA9681@jasmine.lan> <20180426204720.GA20666@jasmine.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000d6d58056ac696cb" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33011) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fBntu-0007lE-U3 for help-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 16:54:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fBntu-0000qM-2G for help-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 16:53:59 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::235]:40775) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fBntt-0000q8-Sy for help-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 16:53:57 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-x235.google.com with SMTP id t123-v6so82905iof.7 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:53:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180426204720.GA20666@jasmine.lan> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: Leo Famulari Cc: help-guix --0000000000000d6d58056ac696cb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2018-04-26 22:47 GMT+02:00 Leo Famulari : > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:15:23PM +0000, G=C3=A1bor Boskovits wrote: > > Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to > licence > > the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a copy > of > > the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this partia= l > > application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the noise= . > In > > case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet, then I > > would be happy to contribute a package. > > Many (if not most) of our packages omit some license headers, so I don't > think we should count that as a blocker. > > As for the missing LICENSE file, that's also suboptimal, but as you say, > the author clearly intends to distribute the work as GPL2+. > > One could ask the author the include the LICENSE file, but I think we > can go ahead with adding the software to Guix as it is now. > > What do you think? And others, do you think it's okay to go ahead with > packaging this program? > Ok, I will contact the author, and ask to include a license file. I will prepare a patch tomorrow. I've noticed one more thing, this software does not seem to have official releases. Should I prepare the package based on the tip of current master? What version number should be given? --0000000000000d6d58056ac696cb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2018= -04-26 22:47 GMT+02:00 Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>:
=
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:15:23PM +00= 00, G=C3=A1bor Boskovits wrote:
> Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to li= cence
> the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a cop= y of
> the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this parti= al
> application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the nois= e. In
> case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet, then I=
> would be happy to contribute a package.

Many (if not most) of our packages omit some license headers, so I d= on't
think we should count that as a blocker.

As for the missing LICENSE file, that's also suboptimal, but as you say= ,
the author clearly intends to distribute the work as GPL2+.

One could ask the author the include the LICENSE file, but I think we
can go ahead with adding the software to Guix as it is now.

What do you think? And others, do you think it's okay to go ahead with<= br> packaging this program?

Ok, I will contact = the author, and ask to include a license file. I will prepare a patch
=
tomorrow. I've noticed one more thing, this = software does not seem to have official
rel= eases. Should I prepare the package based on the tip of current master?
What version number should be given?

--0000000000000d6d58056ac696cb--