From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id MFTAFYowjmDTNgAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 06:54:34 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id EMRlEYowjmB7bQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 04:54:34 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 073211EC80 for ; Sun, 2 May 2021 06:54:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:37656 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ld47l-0000HD-89 for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 00:54:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33546) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ld47C-0000H5-0R for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 00:53:58 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:59584) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ld479-0006i8-Qd; Sun, 02 May 2021 00:53:57 -0400 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ld476-0008SF-Ee; Sun, 02 May 2021 00:53:52 -0400 From: Mark H Weaver To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Jam: which licence is this? In-Reply-To: References: <87tunuq1ei.fsf@elephly.net> <87sg3ejmxv.fsf@netris.org> <87h7juje1a.fsf@netris.org> Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 00:53:07 -0400 Message-ID: <874kflrb1t.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.112.178.59; envelope-from=mhw@netris.org; helo=world.peace.net X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619931274; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=IDRNI++QgvcAdOCQWHlBEKFM4Q8eUU1KBD02GAxM6Yg=; b=T+mHUDQ0YtyXUmMbodVFzbD7J7BxGhrJzJoooqKrcZ9sJA5g5qYy98zju7XcDP6lM91kgG z6KjeaO8nnqnIUrFK5Lekmhd02QW1WihuJhlpr8YOVWlL28dClWOEsX9Y31ww/3pZI2SXV UeolwQSdhcA1U72zJtrAuU/UkOE3R63t+fJwEEMC5Wja5AjsPnoFIQ2g49VGsHnkmWDZ5r DuqQ3hC97FyzGLKdow511+Ho97LFsH/7hAdWL7CXC/lcOI6/zmRpkTAt5hdqbgrQdi1bct 0sYgZHkWGVwclvVi+0T+oTJCfa3Y59eiaOf9AgFQp+nRIfm/CNE/fg5zmibErA== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619931274; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=PJcmgNpdjs3Hi7ik77AEBqAB9LRl7OFEOKzJvB/W4LabTR+gMq4Ye7lVENJpVWtvPbzWVN JBvm5oJB/hHlrzLs0qj2ZIwF/bMdGTQXuQyN4Xbl2gVDQV+Z8EF1wCznNNVNf6fkdZx6ml 3lAAtPYUNAtHqWXZYeUwTHLIIP7HbozwhxqouwyySdhvlv2uhU/HERcR7GZdBHsGU/10RM Gxuvb3x8SsGL/p88KNs9KLYq53F+A15dpl4KwLepINAm5tmPlLJZZtx/P4O71VtxJX7o9S VKIl31slLuBBlSQ/r7egiZWPLQ9CHwtT/AiPoS4sVThJdyxqB9EYOzz8qHoGgg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.46 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 073211EC80 X-Spam-Score: -1.46 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 9BT8EchAQrgg Hi Leo, I took the liberty of adding a bit more context to your quotation of me below, since I've added Ludovic to the CC list. Leo Famulari writes: > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> It's true that Guix has a >> longstanding practice of omitting more lax licenses when there's also a >> more restrictive license covering the same package. I should have >> mentioned that. >> >> However, I think that longstanding practice is orthogonal to the >> question of whether licenses covering build system components can be >> omitted from the 'license' field. > [...] >> Specifically, I'm objecting to the idea that the 'license' field need >> only describe the files present in the build outputs. For example, if a >> hypothetical package is licensed under Expat but uses a build system >> covered by the the Q Public License (QPL), I don't think we can omit >> mention of the QPL just because those components are only used during >> the build. >> >> Does that make sense? > > I think I understand what you are suggesting. > > However, there is no precedent in Guix for mentioning the licenses of > build system components in package definitions. I think you're mistaken, or at least this would be news to me. My understanding is that the 'license' field of a package in Guix has _always_ been meant to summarize the license restrictions associated with the package source (the output of "guix build --source"), and *not* merely the package outputs. > I'd guess that almost every single package in Guix would need several > new licenses added to its field, Really? Can you give some examples of this from our core packages? > and that field would become useless for conveying the license of the > program itself. For most purposes, the relevant question is: which license(s) cover the source code, because that's where users will want to exercise the four freedoms of free software. The license(s) that cover the package outputs are of far less interest, because that's not where users will exercise the four freedoms. The 'license' field can only mean one of these two things, and I think it's fairly clear which one it should be. Moreover, I think that this is what it has always meant in Guix. If not, that's a problem. Perhaps Ludovic would like to clarify? Thanks, Mark -- Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about .