From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: Kdenlive License follow-up. Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 16:06:08 +0900 Message-ID: <8736gq6sdb.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87muf1o0ki.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58453) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iBZTE-0004nd-M0 for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 03:06:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iBZTD-00022j-Q7 for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 03:06:16 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x536.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::536]:38088) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iBZTD-00021n-Kr for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 03:06:15 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-x536.google.com with SMTP id x10so5118464pgi.5 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 00:06:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Jesse Gibbons's message of "Wed, 18 Sep 2019 20:41:03 -0600") List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: Jesse Gibbons Cc: help-guix@gnu.org Hi, Jesse Gibbons writes: > On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 21:40 +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> Hi Fanis, >> >> > I asked on the KDE matrix server regarding the Kdenlive licensing and >> > turns out they use GPL-3 in OpenSUSE. Most files are either GPL-2 or >> > GPL-3 or later + KDE Ev. clause so the package can't be licensed as >> > GPL-2 like Gentoo or GPL-2+ as in Guix. >> >> Thank you for the information. >> >> If you could point us to a file that is licensed under GPL version 3 or >> later we should change the license in the package definition to (list >> license:gpl2+ license:gpl3+) with a comment to state that the package is >> effectively under GPL version 3 or later. Is it really useful to record gpl2+ in the license list? I've always seen the license field of records as 'the effective license(s)' that can the package can be licensed under, as this seem more useful to me than having an long exhaustive list of licenses that are overridden by others. So in this case, my personal preference would be to list the license of the package as its actual license, that is, gpl3+. Thoughts? Maxim