Alex Vong <alexvong1...@gmail.com> writes: > Dave Love <f...@gnu.org> 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 >> generally being done, so some Guix binary packages appear to be >> copyright-infringing. >> > Yes, I think Debian has a /usr/share/doc/PKG/copyright file for each > package PKG. Also, it includes the /usr/share/common-licenses/ > directory, so that those copyright files can refer to the common > licenses without copying them verbatimly.
Yes. That won't work for variant licences, though, and for where you have to maintain the copyright notice in the file. >>> Also, in this particular case, since ASL2.0 is incompatible with GPLv2, >>> we actually need to take advantage of the "or later" clause, and >>> "upgrades" it to "GPLv3+". Listing the license as GPLv2+ would confuse >>> the user that GPLv2 covers the program, but in fact it is "effectively" >>> GPLv3. >> >> This possibly depends on whether the licence information refers to the >> source or binary package. Fedora explicitly says binary, for instance. >> > I am unaware of this distinction. Maybe a website explaining this would > be helpful. It's in the Fedora reference. For instance, the licence of a test program in the distribution doesn't affect the licence of the binary outputs if it's not shipped. >> For what it's worth, the information for Fedora and Debian packagers is >> <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field> >> and >> <https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html#copyright-debian-copyright>. >> They're not necessarily consistent, and things may be somewhat different >> for GNU, but they provide a reasonable indication of the legalities. > > I think we should improve the status quote by documenting the license > accurately in the license field. What do you think? Yes, following the Fedora example. I'd assume it's meant to be basically the same thing as RPM's License: field.
