Subject: [bug#49520] [PATCH] Minor fixes to interception-tools and update dual-function-keys.

From: Maxime Devos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:06:04 +0200

Ludovic Courtès schreef op ma 26-07-2021 om 19:36 [+0200]:
> Hi,
> 
> "Paul A. Patience" <[email-masked]> skribis:
> 
> > From 34e0d095c51cb37a10b338586446c48eec9c7bca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: "Paul A. Patience" <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2021 00:08:39 -0400
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/3] gnu: interception-tools: Make minor fixes.
> > 
> > * gnu/packages/linux.scm (interception-tools)[inputs]: Move boost to...
> > [native-inputs]: ...here. New field.
> > [license]: gpl3+ -> gpl3.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +    (native-inputs
> > +     `(("boost" ,boost)))
> >      (inputs
> > -     `(("boost" ,boost)
> > -       ("libevdev" ,libevdev)
> > +     `(("libevdev" ,libevdev)
> 
> I believe Boost should remain in ‘inputs’ or it would not be found when
> cross-compiling.
> 
> > -    ;; Dual-licensed under GPLv3+ or "something else" on request, per
> > +    ;; Dual-licensed under GPLv3 or "something else" on request, per
> >      ;; 'README.md'.
> > -    (license license:gpl3+)))
> > +    (license license:gpl3)))
> 
> AFAICS, nothing in the source says “version 3 only”, so ‘gpl3+’ is correct.

Nothing in the source mentions any version number (aside the license text 
itself), so gpl1+ is correct according to section ‘14. Revised Versions of this License’:

  [...].  If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

This is probably not the intention of the author though,
so maybe write license:gpl3+ anyway, and ‘someone’ should submit a bug report or patch
upstream.

-- Actually, a version number is specified somewhere.  In the README
(https://gitlab.com/interception/linux/tools#license) there is a ‘GPLv3 Free Software’
icon. So GPLv1 and GPLv2 are out.  I'm not sure if GPLv4, GPLv5 ... are allowed
in this case.

Greetings,
Maxime.