Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> writes:

>>> +    (license license:cc0)))
>>
>> 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