From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] gnu: Add ttf2eot. Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:39:11 +0200 Message-ID: <87shypb340.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1459917181-19626-1-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> <1459917181-19626-3-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> <20160407062435.GC17216@debian-netbook> <20160407224900.087b4ee8@openmailbox.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52428) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aqSVM-0004dO-4i for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:39:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aqSVL-0002Da-1t for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:39:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160407224900.087b4ee8@openmailbox.org> (Eric Bavier's message of "Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:49:00 -0500") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Eric Bavier Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Eric Bavier Eric Bavier skribis: > On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:24:35 +0300 > Efraim Flashner wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:32:55PM -0500, ericbavier@openmailbox.org wro= te: >> > From: Eric Bavier >> >=20 >> > * gnu/packages/fontutils.scm (ttf2eot): New variable. >> > * gnu/packages/patches/ttf2eot-cstddef.patch: New patch. >> > * gnu-system.am (dist_patch_DATA): Add it. > [...] >> > + (license license:bsd-2)=20=20 >>=20 >> Issue 30[0] says that the readme says its bsd/lgpl licensed. > [...] >>=20 >> [0] https://code.google.com/archive/p/ttf2eot/issues/30 > > I recall now: I listed bsd-2 as the license, because, while the README > says "License: Derived from WebKit, so BSD/LGPL 2/LGPL 2.1", > the single derived source file includes only BSD in its license > header, and the wrapper source contains no license header at all. Does > this seem alright? I think so. Just briefly mention this as a comment for future reference. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.