On 2026-05-28 at 09:25+09:00, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Nguyễn Gia Phong 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!
