[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question about multiple licenses
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Question about multiple licenses |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Sep 2017 16:57:47 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) |
Dave Love <address@hidden> skribis:
> 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.
There’s no such thing as a “Guix binary package” though, which makes it
different from traditional distros.
In Guix a package is a Scheme object that refers to the source and build
method of upstream software.
One can always view the COPYING file by running, say:
tar xf $(guix build -S glibc) glibc-2.25/COPYING
This is of course suboptimal because the exact incantation varies from
package to package (in some cases there’s no such file.)
Thoughts?
Ludo’.