On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:55:34PM +0530, Arun Isaac wrote: > > Alex Vong writes: > > > Based on the above general argument, I think we should list all the > > licenses instead of just GPLv2+ since it would be inaccurate to say that > > the whole program is under just GPLv2+. > > Listing all the licenses does seem like the safest thing to do. > > > Also, in this particular case, since ASL2.0 is incompatible with GPLv2, > > we actually need to take advantage of the "or later" clause, and > > "upgrades" it to "GPLv3+". > > Is there any Guix package where we have actually done such a license > upgrade? > We have a couple of packages which state "GPL" and we've chosen GPL1+ or something similar. > > Listing the license as GPLv2+ would confuse the user that GPLv2 covers > > the program, but in fact it is "effectively" GPLv3. > > > > Of course, I am not a lawyer. I only get the info from reading the > > web. So I could be saying nonsense... > > > > [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility > -- Efraim Flashner אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted