Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 02:02:11PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> Efraim Flashner writes:
> 
> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:50:53 -0700
> > Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Leo Famulari writes:
> >> 
> >>  [...]  
> >> 
> >> Now there's a license name bound to cause some confusion!
> >> 
> >> It looks free... I think it would be okay to push.  But maybe if only
> >> one or two packages use it it would be better to just use the
> >> non-copyleft license option?
> >> 
> >
> > I went and doublechecked the license, because I've heard in the past it's not
> > actually a copyleft license. According to wikipedia[0], it is not copyleft,
> > but is GPL compatable, and recognized by the FSF. The language of the license
> > does allow for not buying the author a beer.
> >
> >
> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware
> 
> It's not a copyleft license, right.  That's why I suggested non-copyleft
> :)
> 
> For example, in unzip:
> 
> (license (license:non-copyleft "file://LICENSE"
>                                "See LICENSE in the distribution."))

I'll do whatever the consensus says.

But what about the IBM license on the base64 component of signify? What
should I do about that?