bug#26302: [website] translations

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Hi,

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> skribis:

> From a5d9180d960d244053bea0d59d6092060fe4c6dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Florian Pelz <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de>
> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:08:54 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 01/13] doc: Explain more licensing aspects of the '--source'
>  build option.
>
> * doc/guix.texi (Additional Build Options): Explain more.
> ---
>  doc/guix.texi | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
> index da2423b422..d8886fa494 100644
> --- a/doc/guix.texi
> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
> @@ -8328,6 +8328,13 @@ The returned source tarball is the result of applying any patches and
>  code snippets specified in the package @code{origin} (@pxref{Defining
>  Packages}).
>  
> +Note that @command{guix build -S} compiles the sources only of the
> +specified packages.  They do not include the sources of statically
> +linked dependencies, dynamically linked dependencies, or any other
> +dependencies.  When distributing complete corresponding sources for
> +license compliance, you may want to play it safe and use the following
> +@code{--sources} option instead.

I don’t feel strongly about it, but to me, this is a discussion and thus
not quite in line with the style of this section as a reference of ‘guix
build’ options.

As far as the discussion goes :-), I’d argue that the Corresponding
Source in the spirit of the GPL is the derivation rather than what
‘--sources’ returns, since the Corresponding Source should include
“build scripts”.  I would argue that only functional package managers
are able to support such a strong notion of Corresponding Source.

Long story short: the discussion is not clear-cut and I’m not sure it
belongs here.  :-)

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Ludo’.