Re: The purpose of the "license" list of a Guix package (Was: Re: Jam: which licence is this?)

[Maxime Devos]

Leo Prikler schreef op zo 09-05-2021 om 01:04 [+0200]:
> >      and insteads prefers something with basically no licenses.
I meant to write

‘and instead prefers something with basically no restrictions at all’.

here.

> > I would find it interesting to know if some ‘legal people’ have
> > worked out this situation.
> Which ones?  The ones who tell you "you must form a bill of materials"
> or the ones who tell you "just provide the source"?  :)

The ones that don't simply tell ‘do this’ or ‘do that’ but explain their
reasoning carefully. E.g., I recently came across

<https://web.archive.org/web/20140427195428/http://rechten.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/Algemeen/Recht2/2007/GPLauteursrechtelijk/GPL.pdf>

which I'm now reading.

‘Just provide the source’ is a bit simplistic anyways. If APP derives
from GPL-LIB, then you can't release APP as $PROPIETARY even if you
provide the source code of APP and GPL-LIB.

Greetings,
Maxime

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part