From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58178) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dlVlG-0005E9-Ce for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Aug 2017 03:44:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dlVlC-0007g1-Ay for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Aug 2017 03:44:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:47158) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dlVlC-0007fs-7w for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Aug 2017 03:44:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dlVlC-000741-1o for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Aug 2017 03:44:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#27468] [PATCH] gnu: Add linkchecker. Resent-Message-ID: Message-Id: <14857a52.AEAAO8NY76EAAAAAAAAAAAPNQHwAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZoSZK@mailjet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Arun Isaac Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 13:11:42 +0530 In-reply-to: <87pobk2760.fsf@fastmail.com> References: <7a5dc060.AEQAMFHLF6MAAAAAAAAAAAOtUOAAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZTa-9@mailjet.com> <4cc366f5.AEMAO2lAou4AAAAAAAAAAAPNQHwAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZnL7F@mailjet.com> <87y3qb1789.fsf@fastmail.com> <4a4f0a8d.AEEAPL4o3uEAAAAAAAAAAAPFd4cAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZnS4m@mailjet.com> <87pobk2760.fsf@fastmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 27468@debbugs.gnu.org >>> Also, since GPL2+ is stricter than the other licenses, the program as a >>> whole is effectively GPL2+, so we don't really need to mention those >>> one-off source files in the license field (but comments are great). >> >> But, we generally don't hide this information from the user, right? Many >> Guix packages have licenses of even single files mentioned in the >> `license' field. Do you still think I should remove them? > > I don't know :-) Licensing is a tricky topic. The GPL is rather > explicit in that it covers the "program as a whole". If we treat > individual parts differently, it may be misleading to the end user. > > OTOH, the GPL permits using those source files individually under their > own terms. Perhaps the most practical solution would be to add a > "supplementary licenses" interface... > > I am not a lawyer, so please use your own judgement. No strong opinion > either way. :-) I'm confused too. So, I have escalated this question to guix-devel. Let's see what others have to say. =