2018-04-26 22:47 GMT+02:00 Leo Famulari <[email protected]>: > 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? >
Ok, I will contact the author, and ask to include a license file. I will prepare a patch tomorrow. I've noticed one more thing, this software does not seem to have official releases. Should I prepare the package based on the tip of current master? What version number should be given?
