On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:03:34PM +1100, Jookia wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:21:04PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > > > + (home-page "http://pio.sourceforge.net/";) > > > + (license license:gpl2+))) > > > > Since the source files include the "any later version" clause, I changed > > this to GPL3+. I usually grep for 'later version' when COPYING indicates > > GPL2. > > I don't like this and I think this is a bad idea. The project isn't licensed > under the GPLv3+, it's licensed under the GPLv2+. When people search for > packages and read licenses they're not going to be misinformed. I feel this > is a > disservice to the users of Guix, and misleading at best or dishonest at worst. > > You mentioned in IRC that this is supposed to be for the package that Guix > builds and distributes. Indeed, the Guix documentation says the license field > is > for "The license of the package", not the license of the software in the > package. Yet the home-page field is "The URL to the home-page of the package", > and the synopsis field is "A one-line description of the package." 'package' > here means the upstream, not the Guix package. Logic says that the license is > for the software, and yet it's being misrepresented. > > I'd much rather like a package manager that reliably tells me the license for > upstream software, but I have a feeling this is a sore political spot. I don't > even get why you'd distribute the package under a newer GPL- this makes > packages > that were previously compatible incompatible! > > I don't care for the politics, but I think at the very least the 'license' > field > needs to be explicitly documented as not the license for the upstream > software. > > Jookia.
You're right, I was wrong. I'm correcting this mistake and looking through my history to see if I've made it elsewhere.
