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

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Alex Vong writes:

> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 09:00:38AM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>>> 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 <address@hidden> 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?
>>
>> The issue is described in the cover letter:
>>
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-03/msg01097.html
> For your reference, Debian maintainer calls this "IBM license". [0] I
> would call it a non-copyleft license with patent grant.
>
> [0]: 
> http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/s/signify-openbsd/signify-openbsd_13-1_copyright

I think the question is if it's used by anything other than this
particular software, to answer whether (non-copyleft) should be used or
to make a new license entry.  If you know of it being used somewhere
else, I'd put it as its own license entry, otherwise just use
(non-copyleft) I think.

I'm guessing it's probably not used anywhere else, since the patent
grant is pretty specific to the domain of DNS?

Thanks Leo!
 - Chris