[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> Yes, but I should mention some limitations in the license information > recorded in Guix. We associate with each package a list of licenses, > but we do not distinguish between the following cases: > * Recipients who wish to redistribute may choose to follow the terms of > one license from a set of options. It is very important to indicate such disjunctions explicitly. > * Recipients who wish to redistribute must follow the terms of all of > a set of licenses. Do you mean, a conjunction of licenses for the same code? I don't know if that ever happens in a way that matters. Can you show us a real case of this? > * Some code in the program is covered by license A, other code is > covered by license B, etc. This is quite common. I urge you to state explicitly that this is the relationship between the licenses. We could call this a "separate licensing" or "heterogeneous licensing". > We sometimes include a comment in the Guix source code to disambiguate > between these cases, and also to include details such as additional > permissions, but these details are not so easily extracted. Indeed, that is not a very helpful way to record the information. I recommend using | for a disjunction, & for a conjunction (if that ever happens in a significant way), and comma for heterogeneous licensing. Comma would have lower precedence. Thus, it could be Plus could indicate added special terms. LGPL, GPL | Artistic, GPL + added permission if there are three components. Ok? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
