From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add gnushogi and xshogi Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:06:17 -0500 Message-ID: <20170223170617.GB12804@jasmine> References: <1487790904-9384-1-git-send-email-jmd@gnu.org> <20170222215807.GA17166@jasmine> <20170223051919.GA14149@jocasta.intra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51735) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cgwqR-0005km-PR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:06:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cgwqQ-0006ZO-Tm for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:06:19 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170223051919.GA14149@jocasta.intra> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: John Darrington Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, John Darrington --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 06:19:19AM +0100, John Darrington wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:58:07PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 08:15:04PM +0100, John Darrington wrote: > > * gnu/packages/games.scm (gnushogi, xshogi): New variables. > =20 > > +(define-public xshogi > =20 > [...] > =20 > > + ;; Contains a copy of GPLv3 but the licence notices simply > > + ;; state "GNU General Public Licence" without specifying a ve= rsion. > > + (license license:gpl1+))) > =20 > Section 14 of the GPL says "If the Program does not specify a > version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any > version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." > =20 > You are correct. That is why I put gpl1+ > =20 > Do we want to use version 1 of the GPL? I don't fully understand the > issues with it, but it's an unusual choice. >=20 > I don't have a strong opinion here. But there is a precedent in Guix, th= at=20 > where upstream permits a package to be distributed under a choice of lice= nces, > we simply present that choice to our users. We don't - at least I haven'= t seen=20 > any instances of it - choose a particular one that suits us, unless there= is a=20 > good reason for doing that. Okay, that makes sense to me. Please do as you see fit :) --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlivFokACgkQJkb6MLrK fwiO5BAA4CsMyPabxtwcNi/s/tPQcnzmGhca1F1VzPVlxqDHP1/9T/6jDrI0O0e6 XSiRBCiiqs0qszR4EH4e5NsoBtBIiBLcVezWZu6ULRPSDepE6Hc6gEWqm+5PjX+4 IyiVv7SfNLjZd5UfO1PRJQ6m5Du4B2hpt6PPSWsAhuQgb/iGIfRaHmwweGXQXxPU rbG43navyqLZ3DzBZAGsHqIJK/FMAwM75GkWktstkvGdT6T3Yd0d7NEhljD9nyvS rjsi7AJFickkE/39loYAHsNzjvlcP3Q3wMEDNiEj2gMTYLz91K+LWPU6CfDVueYk VCm6K2Vg/DQaoJ436Nm8Z1rNVJoS4VzcO2tnl/5LN5NvJzJsezq3GiEkHRmDsRWL 2W6oToYc24yzEmtBVEvnLfyKJdw/C1Xh/8FsQDy1BVAT2Ld82dgRGE5TvDWKQO5B iIX/GUiliAVCWfngZKHQQP5rmMRvhx3G9+9KD1qjRVdjSZCppvdgpNV35BpAwBUx ybCT1+v532vzJjFm21D5BKv11CXR6pd39KR/vIrzPYxvOFzPoTHYZYks8PWKBtna hwiXx+8DIO1zkN0IY8TyrT/Q7MCcpkNaOigDApqE1GHFBX3sO6hVYub+fpIFikW2 vYMRFyNuX4o/OtWYwmt76zg/WF/0tWNaqhOCjOq6aeGT4Ow7d9M= =/3/U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe--