Re: Jam: which licence is this?

[Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>]

Hi Leo,

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 01:25:21PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> In general, I think that the license field of a package should include
>> all licenses that cover any files in its source distribution (by which I
>> mean the output of "guix build --source").
>> 
>> My rationale is that it is the source code, and not merely the build
>> outputs, where users will want to exercise the four freedoms of free
>> software.  For example, when a user wishes to study, modify, or
>> redistribute the software, they will want to be able to do those things
>> with the entire source distribution.
>> 
>> Does that make sense?  What do you think?
>
> It makes sense, but we've never done that.
>
> For example, the autotools files such as configure.ac bear a simple
> permissive license, but we do not mention that in the license field of
> the 'hello' package.
>
> Instead, we typically use the license that covers the overall program,
> not the (sometimes dozens of) licenses of every single file in the
> source distribution.

You're right, and that's a good point.  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.

> Can you clarify your expectations regarding which files' licenses should
> be mentioned in the package definition?

I haven't thought much about the aforementioned longstanding practice,
but that's not what I'm objecting to here.

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?

     Regards,
       Mark

-- 
Support Richard Stallman against the vicious disinformation campaign
against him and the FSF.  See <https://stallmansupport.org> for more.