Roman Scherer schreef op zo 20-03-2022 om 09:59 [+0100]:
> Since the icons are not installed on a Guix system right now, I think
> we can leave the Guix emacs-lsp-treemacs packages as it is for now.
> 
> Once upstream has added the licenses for the icons, we could take
> another look and maybe only install the ones that we are allowed to
> include.
> 
> What do you think?

Even though they are not currently installed, I would still remove
them from the 'source', as per (guix)Software Freedom:

> Some otherwise free upstream package sources contain a small and
> optional subset that violates the above guidelines, for instance
> because this subset is itself non-free code.  When that happens,
> the offending items are removed with appropriate patches or code
> snippets in the ‘origin’ form of the package (*note Defining
> Packages::).  This way, ‘guix build --source’ returns the “freed”
> source rather than the unmodified upstream source.

That's about code, not icons, but the same principles apply I'd think.
(Though for some reason, the FSDG makes an exception for things like
images in the section ‘Non-functional Data’?)

(In this case, the idea icons are likely to be non-free, the netbeans 
and eclipse icons are presumabl non-free.)

Even if the ‘Non-Functional Data’ exception is followed, I think
the source should still remove things that do not seem to follow the
licensing requirements (*) (and hence, might be illegal to
redistribute), to avoid nasty surprises for users doing "guix build --
sources=transitive foo bar ...".

(*) TBC, I am not accusing emacs-lsp-treemacs of violating license
terms.  Rather, it is not clear to me that it does _not_ violate
licensing terms, and I'd like any potential licensing concerns to be
investigated (and corrected, if necessary) before including the icons
in Guix.

Greetings,
Maxime.