Re: Help identifying licenses

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1072 bytes --]

Jesse,

Jesse Gibbons 写道：
> 1. newspeak
> The author says bsd-like. I don't see any clauses or 
> yelling. What should I
> put for it? Here's the relevant snippet from debian/copyright:

This is the ‘Expat’ licence, often ambiguously called ‘MIT’.

> 2. Kenny
> The author says Artistic as found on debian in 
> /usr/share/common-
> licenses/Artistic. It is not found in (guix licenses), and 
> sincee I do not
> run debian from that era I cannot compare the text to verify the 
> license's
> identity. Here's the relevant snippet from debian/copyright:

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.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[0]: https://www.tobias.gr/Debian.Artistic.txt

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]