Hi, Nguyễn Gia Phong via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." <[email protected]> writes:
[...] >> Yes, I don't think we should treat the 'license' field >> as the exhaustive listing of all licenses that may be used >> in the source of a software (like a Debian 'copyright' file >> might define [...]). I think we can probably agree >> that seeing all these listed in the 'license' field >> of our git package would dilutes its usefulness, >> when the main/effective license of the git project is gpl2. > > Though I'd agree that Git as a whole is copyleft, saying the license > of Git is GPLv2 is technically incorrect IMHO. If the license field > for git should be gpl2.0, package-license should be documented as > license(s) the package is published under, in whole or part, > listed in some certain order (?). I think this would match what we've been doing in Guix yes, and is most sensical from the point of view of a Guix user looking at what is the published license of a package, which they may want to use to better choose one package over another one (it's something I often do myself -- faced with two similar packages that claim to do the same thing, I'll prefer the one with a copyleft license, which protects my user freedoms better). I'm not sure about the ordering part. I'll prepare a draft attempting to document what we've discussed here. Thanks for the discussion! -- Maxim
