Re: Jam: which licence is this?

[Leo Famulari]

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 01:25:21PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> In general, I think that the license field of a package should include
> all licenses that cover any files in its source distribution (by which I
> mean the output of "guix build --source").
> 
> My rationale is that it is the source code, and not merely the build
> outputs, where users will want to exercise the four freedoms of free
> software.  For example, when a user wishes to study, modify, or
> redistribute the software, they will want to be able to do those things
> with the entire source distribution.
> 
> Does that make sense?  What do you think?

It makes sense, but we've never done that.

For example, the autotools files such as configure.ac bear a simple
permissive license, but we do not mention that in the license field of
the 'hello' package.

Instead, we typically use the license that covers the overall program,
not the (sometimes dozens of) licenses of every single file in the
source distribution.

Can you clarify your expectations regarding which files' licenses should
be mentioned in the package definition?