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 <cweb...@dustycloud.org> 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?
