On April 26, 2018 4:53:56 PM EDT, "Gábor Boskovits" <boskovits@gmail.com> wrote:
>2018-04-26 22:47 GMT+02:00 Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
>Ok, I will contact the author, and ask to include a license file. I
>will
>prepare a patch
>tomorrow. I've noticed one more thing, this software does not seem to
>have
>official
>releases. Should I prepare the package based on the tip of current
>master?
>What version number should be given?

Use whatever commit is recommended upstream or, if there is no recommendation, the latest commit.

Please see the manual section Version Numbers for the full answer regarding the version identifier. There are two procedures, git-version and git-file-name, that will be useful here.