On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:10:22AM -0500, Martin Blais wrote: > I think at the EOTD we just disagree on the license issue and let's > just leave it at that.
Except I didn't start this thread trying to agree on a license. Or on anything else, really. I started this thread just to point out that it is not *clear* whether Beancount is GPL2 or GPL2+. That lack of clarity gets in the way of getting things done, e.g., packaging Beancount for distros because they usually insist on license clarity. >From what you wrote I understand you're now inclined to keep Beancount GPL2 only, at least for now. Can you please make this choice apparent in the code itself, maybe fixing the inconsistencies that I've pointed out in my very first message in this thread, or do you prefer if I file a issue about this? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . [email protected] . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beancount" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/20161124073026.duy57n6z222r4iqr%40upsilon.cc. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
