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?