From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add httping. Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:01:45 +0200 Message-ID: <4f26f94d-704b-0316-5498-e4156cd6c331@tobias.gr> References: <20160726201442.6541-1-me@tobias.gr> <87lh0o16m8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56488) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bS9Uv-0004gw-4z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:02:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bS9Ur-0007S1-U4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:02:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87lh0o16m8.fsf@gnu.org> 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: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=c3=a8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ludo', On 26/07/2016 22:34, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > All I see is ‘license.txt’, which says that it’s under GPLv2-only. > Should it be simply ‘license:gpl2’? Dammit, you're right. I wrote the expression for my own use, using git, then changed it back to a release for submission here. I didn't realise the relicencing was so recent. However, in my AGPL3 HEAD, license.txt and LICENSE are still GPLv2 — i.e. wrong. I'll write myself a note to ignore them when updating. I'll send a note upstream as well. Thanks, T G-R