Re: Question about multiple licenses

[Dave Love]

Alex Vong <address@hidden> 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
<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.