Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:10:48PM -0500, Alex Griffin wrote: >> On Sat, May 7, 2016, at 05:23 PM, Leo Famulari wrote:
[...] >> > There are some GPL'd files in 'contrib/', 'lisp/', and 'python/res/' >> > >> > The file 'tools/update_copyright_year' has an Expat license. >> > >> > And, I think that unless we delete the bundled utfcpp, we are >> > distributing it through `guix build --source ledger`, so we should >> > mention its Boost license. >> >> Is the license field for the source tarball or the package that actually >> gets installed? > > Good question. Can anyone answer it? It’s meant to be for the installed package. In practice, we’ve often encoded the license of the source files, usually a superset of the licenses that apply to the installed software. When specifying a list of licenses, make sure to add a comment saying what the list means: if it’s a combination, a license choice, etc. We should provide ways to express these different things at some point… >> If it's the former, I have to say that's really >> unintuitive. I was aware of these extra licenses, but none of that code >> gets installed after you build the package. Note that emacs-ledger-mode >> uses the same source tarball and I specified its license as GPL2+. >> Instead of changing the license field in this patch, I added a note >> about the other files to make it clear that changing the build options >> may require the license field to change too. I can change it again if >> that's wrong, but it seems to me that the license field should really be >> about what gets installed. > > Good points. My original thought when bringing this up was that we also > distribute the source code with `guix package --source`. Right, but the source carries its own license anyway in ‘COPYING’, file headers, etc. So I sympathize with what Alex wrote. Thoughts? Ludo’.
