Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> 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.
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]