[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Jam: which licence is this?
From: |
Maxim Cournoyer |
Subject: |
Re: Jam: which licence is this? |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:20:31 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:
> Hi Jack,
>
> Jack Hill <jackhill@jackhill.us> writes:
>
>> I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for Guix. To
>> build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:
>>
>> ```
>> This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
>>
>> License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it
>> freely, as long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications
>> are clearly marked.
>>
>> ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.
>> ```
>>
>> Which license is this?
>
> Thanks very much for your diligence here.
>
> I looked into it, and Debian calls this the "Perforce" license. The
> "copyright" file for Debian's 'boost' package includes the following
> lines:
>
> License: Perforce
> License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it
> freely, as long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications
> are clearly marked.
> .
> ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.
>
> <https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/b/boost1.67/boost1.67_1.67.0-13+deb10u1_copyright>
>
> Maybe this should be added to (guix licenses) as 'perforce', or perhaps
> 'perforce-jam'?
Unless that license is commonly used enough, I would rather not bloat
the licenses list in Guix and instead use the non-copyleft procedure to
define it on the spot, if needed.
Does that make sense?
Maxim
Re: Jam: which licence is this?, Mark H Weaver, 2021/04/25
- Re: Jam: which licence is this?,
Maxim Cournoyer <=
Re: Jam: which licence is this?, Vagrant Cascadian, 2021/04/25