From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Love Subject: Re: Question about multiple licenses Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:43:48 +0100 Message-ID: <873786zlsb.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> References: <681c721c.AEQAPExWoDUAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZoSX-@mailjet.com> <87mv6kj7i7.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35382) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnkMz-0004RY-Kl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:44:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnkMw-0002Xn-GX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:44:17 -0400 Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=43680 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnkMw-0002XS-9W for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:44:14 -0400 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dnkMf-0007ln-66 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:43:57 +0200 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: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Vong writes: > 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+. 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. > 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. > Of course, I am not a lawyer. I only get the info from reading the > web. So I could be saying nonsense... Well said. Surely things like this in a GNU project need FSF legal advice if there's any question about them. 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.