Subject: Re: [bug#47905] gnu: Add rasdaemon.

From: Leo Famulari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:08:48 -0400

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:54:49PM +0900, [email-masked] wrote:
> The `FSF All Permissive License' just comes from the INSTALL file.  In general,
> I'm aware that we can include multiple licenses, so the above output would look
> like:
> 
>     (license `(,license:fsf-free ,license:lgpl2.1 ,license:gpl2 ,license:gpl2+))
> 
> However, legally-speaking, was is the correct approach here?

Overall, the program is distributed under the GPL version 2, based on
COPYING (whether or not "later versions" are allowed depends on license
headers of individual files).

Some components may have other licenses, but I'd say the whole thing —
the "program" as we use it — is GPL 2.

In general, we redistribute the program under a single license, so that
is what the license field should say.  Maybe if there is some really
valuable component that can be used under a different license, we can
add a code comment about it.  But, I don't think it's helpful to list
the licenses of files such as INSTALL, nor is it unusual that they have
a different license than the whole.

I would refer to this page for more advice about the GPL:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

I'm not a legal expert, and my understanding is that none of this stuff
is really "settled" or "well understood" legally — that would require
extensive and repeated litigation, at least in the USA, which has not
occurred.