From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Subject: Re: Help identifying licenses Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 20:58:48 +0200 Message-ID: <874l0llmzb.fsf@nckx> References: <644c16fbe6b0151174a3a91e67c1dba092bfa778.camel@gmail.com> <875zl1ln3b.fsf@nckx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49849) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iHBk5-0004nl-Et for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2019 14:58:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iHBk4-0000RZ-GO for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2019 14:58:53 -0400 Received: from tobias.gr ([2001:470:7405::1]:42390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iHBk4-0000Qw-6n for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2019 14:58:52 -0400 Received: by tobias.gr (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id db7a840d for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 18:58:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by submission.tobias.gr (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 0807dbbf (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 18:58:50 +0000 (UTC) In-reply-to: <875zl1ln3b.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: help-guix@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tobias Geerinckx-Rice =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > As noted on IRC: I've mirrored that file from a debian=20 > 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 =E2=80=98Artistic=E2=80=99 lice= nce,=20 > though, > we can be almost certain that other Guix packages have the same=20 > subtle > difference already. It turns out that what text I had found on-line as the =E2=80=98Artistic=20 1.0=E2=80=99 licence was either bogus or mislabelled. It does seem to be=20 the (non-free!) Artistic 1.0 licence. Kind regards, T G-R --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEfo+u0AlEeO9y5k0W2Imw8BjFSTwFAl2aOWgACgkQ2Imw8BjF STz81Q//SSlpuPYkE8GX8G4t7wtqPCxzXU+y8IIEfJPf/X4GheUuYnkRsFreCLFg B8D8BmPig7dls648RCYyKGEmw6ojP0AdZ4S+iFdiSAaZH05nyfcCvkP0Kzz8k4vx dBdEA9Iqu5pMxlgIrfrIv9mKOmsC3A4CsiKpHHOZvUFVqx1s2Ad0XAyD6IJV8bW2 ycmtC4cYbmFF1ct5wE2QF8TaqtdaUOrq4OWO6+xdhqrZYaru1XtA1r4keQ6AE8tB FEf5wO2nW7d/cqxqQWghrOvwMy3cGMtKxXXDlTtRFQrT6+oqdBJ2CVjVYLp4KcsA /gzRojNaTNfSnyDhVq21o+YNgYAvt+zzewXwtkocyP+HZ0EysrX+j7uBaRxb/eVy A8FLz6TqTozROi8TWhXS1wmu5MPBwK1VMc1v4zA2mDOubq4dI3NE5nm9tiXGEXC6 VW9u51isE9y4+3TuKpfo9sT58TNNUwNSO599UFdr0NUZ5vLWL1AqzZtbVivJ20VX JTaLo/Q+5vS6OLczVTpPJchdLpbShLFZS9lbv+iMdX/Q//9Y+Fdt7NSoA6b8GZp7 lGgXA0zj+fKddfzor1qRfoFlVZYmxlAz8CNfJAvynLY/DJMt4UQPA3Y01eaey+3M 18AGbun2ltvza7zAJxHEXL4sS2EMVs18YIuTZEDljcW78dyQeH4= =w3tL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--