Hi Guillaume, thank you for your follow up and for your contribution to Guix! Guillaume Le Vaillant writes: > Giovanni Biscuolo skribis: [...] >> AFAIU the license in 1. means that that piece of code is not free >> software, since "verbatim copy" AFAIU is not free >> >> The license in 2. AFAIU is free software, license:expat or other? Can >> you clarify please? >> >> The code referenced in 3. is suggested by lispm in >> https://gist.github.com/inconvergent/8b6ccfbde4fca7844c1962082ef07a7e >> and AFAIU is not a trivial patch with no clear license: I really don't >> know how this kind of code is normally evaluated from a GNU FSDG point >> of view >> >> I think we need some guidance from someone more experienced in license >> issues. > I pushed the patch just before receiving your email about the possible > license issue. Bad timing... I saw your push some minutes after my message :-) > I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure what the final license of Weir is, so > it would be nice if some license expert could give us their opinion on > this. And in case there's a problem, I'll revert the patch. I am almost sure that the licenses for the points 1 (license clearly stated by Paul Graham) and 3 (no license for that code means "classic" full copyright) are non-free. Please do not forget that a reasonable copyright and license audit is one of the things to do before committing, so please do not skip this important step just IANAL ;-) Please can you yust revert this patch and give us some time to settle this issue? Thanks! Giovanni -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures