From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Gibbons Subject: Re: Help identifying licenses Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 13:59:39 -0600 Message-ID: <794d0849ae37841598b32f872ad27cb9abf2c859.camel@gmail.com> References: <644c16fbe6b0151174a3a91e67c1dba092bfa778.camel@gmail.com> <875zl1ln3b.fsf@nckx> <874l0llmzb.fsf@nckx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59250) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iHCgy-0001rl-MB for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2019 15:59:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iHCgx-0007ST-Ix for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2019 15:59:44 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]:43245) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iHCgx-0007SB-BM for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2019 15:59:43 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id a2so7228817pfo.10 for ; Sun, 06 Oct 2019 12:59:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <874l0llmzb.fsf@nckx> 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: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice , help-guix@gnu.org On Sun, 2019-10-06 at 20:58 +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 写道： > > As noted on IRC: I've mirrored that file from a debian > > system[0]. What > > a mess: it's *almost* > > , > > but not actually the same (e.g. points 3.e & 4.e are missing). > > > > Considering this is what Debian calls the ‘Artistic’ licence, > > though, > > we can be almost certain that other Guix packages have the same > > subtle > > difference already. > > It turns out that what text I had found on-line as the ‘Artistic > 1.0’ licence was either bogus or mislabelled. It does seem to be > the (non-free!) Artistic 1.0 licence. > > Kind regards, > > T G-R As mentioned on IRC, The non-free artistic license the FSF links to and says is too vague does not have an identical clause 8. OSI calls it the perl version of artistic-1.0. I do not think FSF has looked at it. Kenny was added to the filters git repo with its license note Feb 20 2006. Has the license at the specified location been changed since then? I will contact the copyright holders and see if they are willing to use clarified-artistic or artistic-2.0 or disjunct artistic/gpl or some other free license. If so, I will ask the package maintainer to change debian/copyright with that detail. Until then, I will make sure the package does not install or use kenny. -- -Jesse