Dave Love writes: > Alex Vong <alexvong1...@gmail.com> 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.
I pushed linkchecker with all the licenses listed. So, I guess we've done the right thing with respect to this package.
