Re: Help identifying licenses

[Jesse Gibbons]

On Sun, 2019-10-06 at 20:58 +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 写道：
> > As noted on IRC: I've mirrored that file from a debian 
> > system[0]. What
> > a mess: it's *almost*
> > <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Clarified_Artistic_License_1.0>,
> > but not actually the same (e.g. points 3.e & 4.e are missing).
> > 
> > Considering this is what Debian calls the ‘Artistic’ licence, 
> > though,
> > we can be almost certain that other Guix packages have the same 
> > subtle
> > difference already.
> 
> It turns out that what text I had found on-line as the ‘Artistic 
> 1.0’ licence was either bogus or mislabelled.  It does seem to be 
> the (non-free!) Artistic 1.0 licence.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> T G-R


As mentioned on IRC, The non-free artistic license the FSF links to and says
is too vague does not have an identical clause 8. OSI calls it the perl
version of artistic-1.0. I do not think FSF has looked at it.

Kenny was added to the filters git repo with its license note Feb 20 2006.
Has the license at the specified location been changed since then?

I will contact the copyright holders and see if they are willing to use
clarified-artistic or artistic-2.0 or disjunct artistic/gpl or some other
free license. If so, I will ask the package maintainer to change
debian/copyright with that detail. Until then, I will make sure the package
does not install or use kenny.
-- 
-Jesse