Andy Wingo writes:
> More concretely... if this is necessary (and I suspect but don't know
> that it is,) probably the easiest thing would be for each package to
> install a copyright file in its output derivations. Then a "guix pack"
> would include them automatically. It would be good to syml
Ludovic Courtès writes:
>> Well, from what I know about copyright, that isn't the licence of glibc,
>> which is the sum of all the licences involved, and you'd have to know
>> how to find them if you didn't just unpack the tarball. With pack
>> output in a lot of cases you don't have the informa
On Mon 11 Sep 2017 13:29, Alex Vong writes:
>>> Well, from what I know about copyright, that isn't the licence of glibc,
>>> which is the sum of all the licences involved, and you'd have to know
>>> how to find them if you didn't just unpack the tarball. With pack
>>> output in a lot of cases yo
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Dave Love skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>>
>>> Dave Love skribis:
>>>
Alex Vong 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
Dave Love skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Dave Love skribis:
>>
>>> Alex Vong 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+.
Alex Vong writes:
> Dave Love writes:
>
>> 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 t
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Dave Love skribis:
>
>> Alex Vong 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
Dave Love skribis:
> Alex Vong 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
Dave Love writes:
> Alex Vong 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
Dave Love writes:
> 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
>
Alex Vong 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 se
Efraim Flashner writes:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:55:34PM +0530, Arun Isaac wrote:
>>
>> Alex Vong 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 j
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:55:34PM +0530, Arun Isaac wrote:
>
> Alex Vong 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+.
>
> Listing all the
Alex Vong 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+.
Listing all the licenses does seem like the safest thing to do.
> Also, in this particular
Arun Isaac writes:
> I'm packaging linkchecker.
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27468
>
> Different files of linkchecker have different license headers. The
> license field of the package is as follows:
>
> (license (list l:gpl2+
>l:bsd-2 ; linkcheck/better_exchook
I'm packaging linkchecker.
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27468
Different files of linkchecker have different license headers. The
license field of the package is as follows:
(license (list l:gpl2+
l:bsd-2 ; linkcheck/better_exchook2.py
l:bsd-3 ; link
16 matches
Mail list logo
