Hi,
Maxime Devos writes:
[...]
> However, keep in mind that sometimes a file is part licensed as, say,
> BSD(*), part as Expat, with modifications under the GPL -- to me it
> appears that for practical purposes you could consider such a thing to
> be 'effectively GPL', but that's not 100% accur
Maxime Devos writes:
> On 22-08-2022 11:02, 宋文武 wrote:
>
>> Hello list, I have some questions about the 'license' of a package,
>> currently defined as:
>>
>> The license of the package; a value from ‘(guix licenses)’, or a
>> list of such values.
>>
>> 1. It's the license of source fil
John Kehayias writes:
> Hello 宋文武,
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 05:02 PM, 宋文武 wrote:
>
>> Hello list, I have some questions about the 'license' of a package,
>> currently defined as:
>>
>> The license of the package; a value from ‘(guix licenses)’, or a
>> list of such values.
>>
>> 1. It'
On 22-08-2022 11:02, 宋文武 wrote:
Hello list, I have some questions about the 'license' of a package,
currently defined as:
The license of the package; a value from ‘(guix licenses)’, or a
list of such values.
1. It's the license of source files (guix build -S) or built binary
file
Hello 宋文武,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 05:02 PM, 宋文武 wrote:
> Hello list, I have some questions about the 'license' of a package,
> currently defined as:
>
> The license of the package; a value from ‘(guix licenses)’, or a
> list of such values.
>
> 1. It's the license of source files (guix b
Hello list, I have some questions about the 'license' of a package,
currently defined as:
The license of the package; a value from ‘(guix licenses)’, or a
list of such values.
1. It's the license of source files (guix build -S) or built binary
files?
2. When its value is a list of mul
