From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Love Subject: Re: Question about multiple licenses Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 17:21:08 +0100 Message-ID: <87377yqy2z.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> References: <681c721c.AEQAPExWoDUAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZoSX-@mailjet.com> <87mv6kj7i7.fsf@gmail.com> <873786zlsb.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> <871snp59cu.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47421) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpzYJ-0006oJ-Ae for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:21:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpzYE-0006bL-Jw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:21:15 -0400 Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk ([130.88.200.93]:23166) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpzYE-0006au-DZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:21:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <871snp59cu.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Vong's message of "Sun, 3 Sep 2017 00:54:57 +0800") 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: Alex Vong Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Vong writes: > 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. Yes. That won't work for variant licences, though, and for where you have to maintain the copyright notice in the file. >>> 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. It's in the Fedora reference. For instance, the licence of a test program in the distribution doesn't affect the licence of the binary outputs if it's not shipped. >> 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? Yes, following the Fedora example. I'd assume it's meant to be basically the same thing as RPM's License: field.