From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add pioneers Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:17:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20160216021735.GA11870@jasmine> References: <86a3f4ede2b6df0b1813c1e7d4861e4a@openmailbox.org> <20160216012104.GA3984@jasmine> <20160216020334.GA3987@novena-choice-citizen.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40283) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aVVCp-00073N-Oi for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:17:36 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aVVCk-0001uP-LZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:17:35 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:35100) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aVVCk-0001uD-FF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:17:30 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160216020334.GA3987@novena-choice-citizen.lan> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Jookia <166291@gmail.com> Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, thylakoid@openmailbox.org 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.