Re: Question about multiple licenses

[Efraim Flashner]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:55:34PM +0530, Arun Isaac wrote:
> 
> Alex Vong writes:
> 
> > Based on the above general argument, I think we should list all the
> > licenses instead of just GPLv2+ since it would be inaccurate to say that
> > the whole program is under just GPLv2+.
> 
> Listing all the licenses does seem like the safest thing to do.
> 
> > Also, in this particular case, since ASL2.0 is incompatible with GPLv2,
> > we actually need to take advantage of the "or later" clause, and
> > "upgrades" it to "GPLv3+".
> 
> Is there any Guix package where we have actually done such a license
> upgrade?
> 

We have a couple of packages which state "GPL" and we've chosen GPL1+ or
something similar.

> > Listing the license as GPLv2+ would confuse the user that GPLv2 covers
> > the program, but in fact it is "effectively" GPLv3.
> >
> > Of course, I am not a lawyer. I only get the info from reading the
> > web. So I could be saying nonsense...
> >
> > [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility
> 

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <address@hidden>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature