Leo Famulari writes: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:15:23PM +0000, Gábor Boskovits wrote: >> Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to licence >> the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a copy of >> the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this partial >> application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the noise. In >> case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet, then I >> would be happy to contribute a package. > > Many (if not most) of our packages omit some license headers, so I don't > think we should count that as a blocker. > > As for the missing LICENSE file, that's also suboptimal, but as you say, > the author clearly intends to distribute the work as GPL2+. > > One could ask the author the include the LICENSE file, but I think we > can go ahead with adding the software to Guix as it is now. > > What do you think? And others, do you think it's okay to go ahead with > packaging this program? As you said, it seems clear that the author intended this to be GPLv2+. The REAMDE.md file states: License ------- *xkblayout-state* is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. *xkblayout-state* is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. I agree with Leo: I think it's reasonable to take the author at their word and package this as GPLv2+. At the same time, Gábor is also right: to eliminate any shadow of doubt, the author should probably follow the advice that Gábor gave. Whoever packages the software should probably contact the author and give them a friendly reminder about that. -- Chris