From: Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com>
To: Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Question about multiple licenses
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2017 00:54:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871snp59cu.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <873786zlsb.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> (Dave Love's message of "Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:43:48 +0100")
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1726 bytes --]
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org> writes:
> Indeed. Not only do you need to list the licences (according to all
> "legal advice" I've seen for distributions), but normally also
> distribute the relevant licence texts, even for permissive licences if
> they require that (e.g. BSD). I raised this recently, as it's not
> generally being done, so some Guix binary packages appear to be
> copyright-infringing.
>
Yes, I think Debian has a /usr/share/doc/PKG/copyright file for each
package PKG. Also, it includes the /usr/share/common-licenses/
directory, so that those copyright files can refer to the common
licenses without copying them verbatimly.
>> 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+". Listing the license as GPLv2+ would confuse
>> the user that GPLv2 covers the program, but in fact it is "effectively"
>> GPLv3.
>
> This possibly depends on whether the licence information refers to the
> source or binary package. Fedora explicitly says binary, for instance.
>
I am unaware of this distinction. Maybe a website explaining this would
be helpful.
> For what it's worth, the information for Fedora and Debian packagers is
> <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field>
> and
> <https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html#copyright-debian-copyright>.
> They're not necessarily consistent, and things may be somewhat different
> for GNU, but they provide a reasonable indication of the legalities.
I think we should improve the status quote by documenting the license
accurately in the license field. What do you think?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-02 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-26 7:40 Question about multiple licenses Arun Isaac
2017-08-28 10:45 ` Alex Vong
2017-08-28 17:25 ` Arun Isaac
2017-08-28 17:29 ` Efraim Flashner
2017-08-29 6:30 ` Arun Isaac
2017-09-01 11:43 ` Dave Love
2017-09-02 16:54 ` Alex Vong [this message]
2017-09-07 16:21 ` Dave Love
2017-09-03 11:45 ` Arun Isaac
2017-09-04 14:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
2017-09-07 16:20 ` Dave Love
2017-09-10 20:54 ` Ludovic Courtès
2017-09-11 11:29 ` Alex Vong
2017-09-11 12:45 ` Andy Wingo
2017-09-12 22:15 ` Dave Love
2017-09-12 22:13 ` Dave Love
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=871snp59cu.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=alexvong1995@gmail.com \
--cc=fx@gnu.org \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.