GNU bug report logs -
#26256
[PATCH 0/6] Add ceph + multipath-tools.
Previous Next
Reported by: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:28:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #50 received at 26256 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> skribis:
>
>> * gnu/packages/linux.scm (userspace-rcu): New variable.
>
> [...]
>
>> + (license
>> + ;; This library is distributed under LGPL2.1+, but includes some files
>> + ;; covered by other licenses. The LICENSE file has full details.
>> + (list license:lgpl2.1+
>> + license:gpl3+ ; most tests are gpl2+; tap.sh is gpl3+
>> + license:bsd-2 ; tests/utils/tap/tap.[ch]
>> + license:expat ; urcu/uatomic/*
>> + ;; A few files use different variants of the MIT/X11 license.
>> + (license:x11-style "file://LICENSE"
>> + "See LICENSE in the distribution for details.")))))
>
> It’s a case where it’d be enough to put lgpl2.1+ and gpl3+ IMO, since
> that’s what effectively applies to the resulting work.
Is this also true for the source code archive itself? As an end user,
looking at the license list and deciding to `guix build -S`, I would
expect the contents to match what's in the package definition.
Is this a distinction we should make? I.e. "source" license vs "product"
license. For Ceph, this would be the current license list in the first
instance and just lgpl2.1 and gpl2 for the built product.
Tricky! Moving the other licenses to the comments for this package, but
something to think about.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 8 years and 115 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.