[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 16:47:20 -0400
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?
Description: PGP signature