Alex Vong <alexvong1...@gmail.com> writes: > Hello Brendan, > > If I understand correctly, CC-BY 4.0 is a non-copyleft license. Since > the license is compatible with CC-BY 4.0, it is also a permissive > license. So I think using 'license:non-copyleft' should work. > Also, you can add a comment stating that the license is compatible with CC-BY 4.0 likes how Debian does it.
>> ng0 於 2017-04-25 17:47 寫道: >>> >>> CC-BY 3.0 is in Guix. Unless something fundamental changed in 4.0, 4.0 >>> should be okay to add in the variants which are not CC-BY-NC. >>> >>> Licenses can be added in guix/licenses.scm >> Well the license seems to be compatible with CC-BY 4.0 because it >> explicitly states so in clause 4.2. Or is it compatible as a matter of >> fact and that clause is simply pointing it out, and so it may also be >> compatible with CC-BY 3.0? When we assign a license in a Guix package >> definition, my understanding is that this is a statement saying >> effectively "If you look in the source tar.gz, you will see that this >> package is in fact licensed under ... license, perhaps in the COPYING >> file". If I set the license to CC-BY 4.0, would that be claiming the >> Taiwanese government has issued the font under that license. Does clause >> 4.2 mean "You can redistribute this under CC-BY 4.0 with your name on >> it, if you want" or "We grant you this under the CC-BY 4.0". I'm not >> even sure if that is a meaningful distinction in copyright law. If the >> former is actually correct, does this require me as a Guix dev to add a >> COPYING file distributing the font under CC-BY 4.0 under my name or >> what? Can I say truthfully that the source .zip file containing the >> fonts is under the CC-BY 4.0 ?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
