Adonay Felipe Nogueira <[email protected]> writes: > About the license field notation, I don't know if this is indeed what > the GNU Guix project interpretes about it, but for me I always see a > list of licenses as being connected with a series of "or"'s.
That appears to be wrong, and certainly wouldn't be the usual case. > One thing to note however, and I often find it simpler to do, is that: > at least in *my* opinion, the license field is used to list the license > in which the resulting package is under, not to list each and every > license found inside the package nor to list each and every license of > the package's dependencies/recommendations/suggestions. In many cases the package isn't under a single licence -- that's the point. A few packages have a choice of licence, like MIT or GPL, but they're relatively rare. I wouldn't expect to list licences of all the dependencies; certainly that's not what you do with Debian and Fedora packaging. It's important not to go by your (non-legal, I assume) opinion when it come to legal matters like copyright. For instance, I've had a GNU contribution blocked because of Moglen's opinion on it when I thought the situation was clear with respect to GPL enforcement as I'd explicitly engineered it that way.
