> Given that the combination is GPLv3-only in practice, I think it’s
> enough to write ‘gpl3’ (I know we’ve been somewhat inconsistent here…).
In that case, could you use the patch set I sent earlier? That has only
the GPL3.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-10/msg00974.html
si
Leo Famulari skribis:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:20:04AM +0530, Arun Isaac wrote:
>> * gnu/packages/messaging.scm (gajim)[license]: Change to GPL3.
>
> Thanks for checking on this!
>
> Indeed, the bulk of the license headers say "version 3 only", so I think
> gajim is GPL3. But, I found a few f
* gnu/packages/messaging.scm (gajim)[license]: Change to GPL3.
---
gnu/packages/messaging.scm | 6 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/messaging.scm b/gnu/packages/messaging.scm
index 0089da1..f5a8c4a 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/messaging.scm
+++ b/gnu/pa
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:20:04AM +0530, Arun Isaac wrote:
> * gnu/packages/messaging.scm (gajim)[license]: Change to GPL3.
Thanks for checking on this!
Indeed, the bulk of the license headers say "version 3 only", so I think
gajim is GPL3. But, I found a few files that are GPL3+, and at least o
* gnu/packages/messaging.scm (gajim)[license]: Change to GPL3.
---
gnu/packages/messaging.scm | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/messaging.scm b/gnu/packages/messaging.scm
index 0089da1..37bbed7 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/messaging.scm
+++ b/gnu/package
