Leo Famulari <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. ápr. 27., P 15:56):
> > > On April 26, 2018 4:53:56 PM EDT, "Gábor Boskovits" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >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? > > Use whatever commit is recommended upstream or, if there is no > recommendation, the latest commit. > > Please see the manual section Version Numbers for the full answer > regarding the version identifier. There are two procedures, git-version and > git-file-name, that will be useful here. > Thanks, I will have a look. >
