Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add pioneers

[Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:03:34PM +1100, Jookia wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:21:04PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > > +    (home-page "http://pio.sourceforge.net/")
> > > +    (license license:gpl2+)))
> >
> > Since the source files include the "any later version" clause, I changed
> > this to GPL3+. I usually grep for 'later version' when COPYING indicates
> > GPL2.
> 
> I don't like this and I think this is a bad idea. The project isn't licensed
> under the GPLv3+, it's licensed under the GPLv2+. When people search for
> packages and read licenses they're not going to be misinformed. I feel this is a
> disservice to the users of Guix, and misleading at best or dishonest at worst.
> 
> You mentioned in IRC that this is supposed to be for the package that Guix
> builds and distributes. Indeed, the Guix documentation says the license field is
> for "The license of the package", not the license of the software in the
> package. Yet the home-page field is "The URL to the home-page of the package",
> and the synopsis field is "A one-line description of the package." 'package'
> here means the upstream, not the Guix package. Logic says that the license is
> for the software, and yet it's being misrepresented.
> 
> I'd much rather like a package manager that reliably tells me the license for
> upstream software, but I have a feeling this is a sore political spot. I don't
> even get why you'd distribute the package under a newer GPL- this makes packages
> that were previously compatible incompatible!
> 
> I don't care for the politics, but I think at the very least the 'license' field
> needs to be explicitly documented as not the license for the upstream software.
> 
> Jookia.

You're right, I was wrong. I'm correcting this mistake and looking
through my history to see if I've made it elsewhere.