Re: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add beerware license.

[Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>]

Leo Famulari writes:

> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 02:02:11PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>> Efraim Flashner writes:
>> 
>> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:50:53 -0700
>> > Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Leo Famulari writes:
>> >> 
>> >>  [...]  
>> >> 
>> >> Now there's a license name bound to cause some confusion!
>> >> 
>> >> It looks free... I think it would be okay to push.  But maybe if only
>> >> one or two packages use it it would be better to just use the
>> >> non-copyleft license option?
>> >> 
>> >
>> > I went and doublechecked the license, because I've heard in the past it's not
>> > actually a copyleft license. According to wikipedia[0], it is not copyleft,
>> > but is GPL compatable, and recognized by the FSF. The language of the license
>> > does allow for not buying the author a beer.
>> >
>> >
>> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware
>> 
>> It's not a copyleft license, right.  That's why I suggested non-copyleft
>> :)
>> 
>> For example, in unzip:
>> 
>> (license (license:non-copyleft "file://LICENSE"
>>                                "See LICENSE in the distribution."))
>
> I'll do whatever the consensus says.

Okay, and again, I don't have strong opinions, just a suggestion.

> But what about the IBM license on the base64 component of signify? What
> should I do about that?

I don't know, could you point to what the code is and the license?