On 2018-06-25, Marius Bakke wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> writes:
>>> According to COPYING, this software is actually "octuple-licensed":
>>>
>>> * CC0 Universal 1.0 - http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0
>>> * Unlicense — http://unlicense.org/
>>> * WTFPL Version 2 - http://www.wtfpl.net/
>>> * Apache Public License 2.0 - https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>> * OpenSSL License - https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html
>>> * MIT License - https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
>>> * The BSD 3-Clause License - https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
>>> * ISC License - https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
>>>
>>> Can you add each of these, along with an explaning comment?
>>
>> And all of those are merely fallback licenses to the author's intention
>> of public domain... and in the files themselves (pyblake2module.c,
>> setup.py), they only reference:
>>
>>   http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0
>>
>> But if it's more appropriate for guix to list all possible licenses,
>> sure. :)
>
> Right.  I missed the top comment of the COPYING file[0], which dedicates
> the software to the public domain.  But it also says that you are free
> to choose any of the others at your discretion.
>
> So I think CC0 is appropriate, but please add a comment explaning the
> situation.  Thanks!
>
> [0] https://github.com/dchest/pyblake2/blob/master/COPYING

Updated patch:
- fixed commit message
- moved to python-crypto.scm
- removed needless linebreak
- updated description
- updated licensing to public-domain/cc0
- clarified additional licensing in comments

Hopefully that covers everything.


live well,
  vagrant