From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vong Subject: Re: Question about multiple licenses Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2017 00:54:57 +0800 Message-ID: <871snp59cu.fsf@gmail.com> References: <681c721c.AEQAPExWoDUAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZoSX-@mailjet.com> <87mv6kj7i7.fsf@gmail.com> <873786zlsb.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57120) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1doBhd-00065j-7E for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2017 12:55:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1doBhY-0003HW-Ae for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2017 12:55:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <873786zlsb.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> (Dave Love's message of "Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:43:48 +0100") 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: Dave Love Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Dave Love 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 > > and > . > 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? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEdZDkzSn0Cycogr9IxYq4eRf1Ea4FAlmq4mQACgkQxYq4eRf1 Ea6gahAAtCKAB13YHZt44L7wXOA4bKsfDs9bD99FSzdB7KPee4KuuWP8yQwFpgja WRQ1zuPUNa7cq//SK9wKpOHr31IXT6gP89XPB/ktTd6HyMuwTFOJfkYmo5wclKJD 5IKnp503HL9pVxTIitYSZ9/ZaIh6+8Lb2r0UHPH0qyvBGKjvXYhp5FFkZuaReq9y w8vPZijiOx4gb5ZmUyBuerzEM4MT2441JI+KTq1sMQf4RVp6ZDsbA3Xt5phE0CMa BgFhPZcLODZQwCpKY8NjmlboSKAoZoKyFa0zOdrlVaff57ZNxiAjPIG6SYiXhQQF 1s2CC1iAyoCNrvbp718j8Eg7eQXuuseL/3FGMPLL8zsgZ5GwBEbCjsBdTpaN65dh xhmRmArr69cQxDEuDG2yJkJviZztEDLeHn9+U2GrEITZT1z2O+vFU8o/G/pdoTBW HIS8i3CjOC2W0DX0Oo483ryQc+dSqpJXA7nqLuta+Bj7Iut2BEWFxCOJ3pq9rkDz xdaO8tOIwuzrHYaAyC4M3l21LnsTHO/Y1sAOrw72ifYRfSRJ8OJFDL46zI/gDAyw +v/R+aGF4UPUUpRcFl91BjH7uCyfy6QIjFWnT7AJ8+lu5ScGZI283zRCCdJWZbwC N55u3cReXeVrqpb5ro+8TjkLyfHaUzUnyh+aKWtT1yLJ7GtgmDA= =08Cx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--