On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 14:42 +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
It seems then that a package should be the least restrictive combination of all the licenses in all the contained modules.
Omit the words "least restrictive" and I think you are correct.
To combine licences, just aggregate them. There is no lattice of subsumption; no "more" or "less" restrictive ordering. It's simple: you must obey all of them. Some aggregations introduce a contradiction of terms, so you cannot legally aggregate those modules without breaking some term. But if the terms of the aggregated licences are compatible rather than contradictory, then all is good.
Right, so the effect of per-file/mixed licenses could be achieved by letting packages specify a list of licenses: license: Foo, Bar Meaning you may copy/distribute provided you comply with all these licenses. Note that this does not cover dual licensing, e.g. Foo or Bar at distributor's choice. Duncan