From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: Question about multiple licenses Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 20:29:36 +0300 Message-ID: <20170828172936.GF1618@macbook42.flashner.co.il> References: <681c721c.AEQAPExWoDUAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZoSX-@mailjet.com> <87mv6kj7i7.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GLp9dJVi+aaipsRk" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57760) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dmNr3-0001Ks-IT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:29:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dmNr0-0001GC-Cc for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:29:41 -0400 Received: from flashner.co.il ([178.62.234.194]:48879) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dmNr0-0001G4-55 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:29:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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" To: Arun Isaac Cc: guix-devel --GLp9dJVi+aaipsRk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:55:34PM +0530, Arun Isaac wrote: >=20 > Alex Vong writes: >=20 > > 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+. >=20 > Listing all the licenses does seem like the safest thing to do. >=20 > > 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+". >=20 > Is there any Guix package where we have actually done such a license > upgrade? >=20 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 >=20 --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --GLp9dJVi+aaipsRk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAlmkUvwACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1GwTg//aMSwHCJqgc+ULq8Zl5UAGS5/kMZBlEIwpfjOQ4N/2+1fBE0sFHZdZEmD AwZc5PtsPJDebAbZ6Uub08YIvFDGFRKUsIW5tbn27/hpSwlxK9zxD7o30aBx2PLr vLYPkE7JYSMy1z9NcidiS30aZt7Dc0myFQ2CsnWd/gqnQAk7OzuC+/co1fVXjNsC NcLo0pkuLncy4V/vAWGHnIyRo/H75OaOultLKrFBbMMfuBg7MjglQjFwTT8x1nqB L6tMlolgZs1d3WM7O9nvLK0xqNqzamjE4UFy9e4FxFNkWxgRIKxETWshD605wAvd jKYP44HkYKM13ywq1RJLyJYORBILGLVuyM4avZi8Eq2GjUhnfYh4QZi0HNhYdK4Z wxAaqrHg6ii7wPEtg6E87F4DmgJCgMINuKqGbaBzsJCIHu1vJszNbtE/SWZkEg62 GaARvNl7JwgmfkhUCgr0zmWuVadix0BtFKaVyZucENN8J8NQhVpH3ZhI43YD/KsO KkLWIaMAAmql8a3KD/9ZQooMycLA3JbWDgyPFYMHc6AsKVERW2PK7nzdlZ5XdQfr 2QgHmE4ey/iVrokgKXsGcDNm03OPHoN/tUVEX7kxRE714qgV7l1o7PEVd8BVc72x q4xPRtryJTs1+lfCTguYlosEsQWnnTLu762OotxUl0CyTwGqYp4= =uE5v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GLp9dJVi+aaipsRk--