Dave Love <[email protected]> skribis: > Alex Vong <[email protected]> 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+. > > 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.
There’s no such thing as a “Guix binary package” though, which makes it different from traditional distros. In Guix a package is a Scheme object that refers to the source and build method of upstream software. One can always view the COPYING file by running, say: tar xf $(guix build -S glibc) glibc-2.25/COPYING This is of course suboptimal because the exact incantation varies from package to package (in some cases there’s no such file.) Thoughts? Ludo’.
