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*
> <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Clarified_Artistic_License_1.0>,
> 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