Mark H Weaver transcribed 826 bytes: > Nils Gillmann <n...@n0.is> writes: > > >> > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > >> > > >> >> r...@gnu.org (Roel Janssen) skribis: > >> >> > >> >>> + (license (package-license perl)))) > >> >> > >> >> Could you use (license perl-license) instead? It doesn’t make any > >> >> difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix > >> >> licenses)). > > > > Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of > > package-license perl? > > I'm not a laywer, but if a future version of 'perl' were released under > a different license, I strongly doubt that this would retroactively > change the licenses of any earlier works. That's exactly what would > happen in Guix if we write (license (package-license perl)) and then > later change the 'license' field of the 'perl' package. > > Mark >
Hm, but this is just our specification, metadata about a package. This doesn't affect the reality of the package distribution. If the license of perl itself changes we would just have made a mistake. We can not be held accountable for mistakes in pointing out a license, at least that is my understanding. I guess we just are trying to prevent licensing mistakes in the future for the hypothetical case that perl ever changes its license?
