Alex Vong writes: > Based on the above general argument, I think we should list all the > licenses instead of just GPLv2+ since it would be inaccurate to say that > the whole program is under just GPLv2+.
Listing all the licenses does seem like the safest thing to do. > 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+". Is there any Guix package where we have actually done such a license upgrade? > Listing the license as GPLv2+ would confuse the user that GPLv2 covers > the program, but in fact it is "effectively" GPLv3. > > Of course, I am not a lawyer. I only get the info from reading the > web. So I could be saying nonsense... > > [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility
