[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Help identifying licenses
From: |
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice |
Subject: |
Re: Help identifying licenses |
Date: |
Sun, 06 Oct 2019 20:56:24 +0200 |
Jesse,
Jesse Gibbons 写道:
1. newspeak
The author says bsd-like. I don't see any clauses or
yelling. What should I
put for it? Here's the relevant snippet from debian/copyright:
This is the ‘Expat’ licence, often ambiguously called ‘MIT’.
2. Kenny
The author says Artistic as found on debian in
/usr/share/common-
licenses/Artistic. It is not found in (guix licenses), and
sincee I do not
run debian from that era I cannot compare the text to verify the
license's
identity. Here's the relevant snippet from debian/copyright:
As noted on IRC: I've mirrored that file from a debian system[0].
What a mess: it's *almost*
<https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Clarified_Artistic_License_1.0>,
but not actually the same (e.g. points 3.e & 4.e are missing).
Considering this is what Debian calls the ‘Artistic’ licence,
though, we can be almost certain that other Guix packages have the
same subtle difference already.
Kind regards,
T G-R
[0]: https://www.tobias.gr/Debian.Artistic.txt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature