[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#34175] [PATCH 1/4] gnu: Add gnu-efi.
From: |
Danny Milosavljevic |
Subject: |
[bug#34175] [PATCH 1/4] gnu: Add gnu-efi. |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 18:48:24 +0100 |
Hi,
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:05:53 +0100
Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Danny,
>
> > * gnu/packages/efi.scm: New file.
> > * gnu/local.mk (GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES): Add it.
> […]
> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/efi.scm b/gnu/packages/efi.scm
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..3a92370ef
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gnu/packages/efi.scm
> > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> > +;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
> > +;;; Copyright © 2016 Danny Milosavljevic <address@hidden>
>
> It’s 2019.
Ah, it must be a new low of me getting the year wrong ;-)
> > + ;; FIXME:
> > https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/g/gnu-efi/gnu-efi_3.0.9-1_copyright
> > + (license license:gpl2)))
>
> What does the FIXME tell us to do? Should this be
>
> ;; The code can be distributed under the terms of either license
> (license (list license:gpl2+ license:expat))
I wanted the reuse the work Debian already did. They list:
* BSD-3-clause-HP
* BSD-2-clause-Linaro or gpl-2+
* BSD-2-clause-Intel
* Expat
* BSD-4-clause-Intel
* GPL-2+
BSD-4-clause is incompatible with GPL.
Therefore, it's lucky that they say "BSD-2-clause-Linaro OR gpl-2+", otherwise
we could not have distributed gnu-efi.
So I suggest:
;; Distribution is allowed only when accepting all those licenses.
(license (list license:bsd-2 license:bsd-3 license:bsd-4 license:expat))
What do you think?
pgp98dAWeKoEE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature