Re: various packaging issues

[Dave Love]

Adonay Felipe Nogueira <address@hidden> 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.