Hi, Sughosha <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Nguyễn, > > On April 29, 2026 6:33:09 a.m. IST, "Nguyễn Gia Phong" <[email protected]> wrote: >>I understand the license as of what is distributed, so both. >>By using origin-snippet you can remove the non-free files. >> >>I don't know how other interpret the meaning of that field though. >> >>Cheers, >>Phong > > I think we need to make this clear in our Guix manual. I see many > packages that does not mention the licenses of unused examples > (examples that are not built and installed but just are still present > in the source). In my opinion, and what I think has been historically done in Guix, is that the `licenses` field should first and foremost be the overall license of the combined work. So if the work is licensed as GPLv3+ globally, but that some example in the there in Expat or something else, I think it's most useful to users that the licenses shown in 'guix show the-package' says GPL 3+ rather than both GPL 3+ and Expat. There's no written rule though, so perhaps we should draft one? The question has been asked enough time that it'd be worth documenting our preferred practice, I think. -- Thanks, Maxim
