From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>
Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS
	id qFfvEEjThWBtjQAAgWs5BA
	(envelope-from <guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>)
	for <larch@yhetil.org>; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:38:32 +0200
Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by mp2 with LMTPS
	id p6ubDEjThWCKXgAAB5/wlQ
	(envelope-from <guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>)
	for <larch@yhetil.org>; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:38:32 +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 E78BE252BC
	for <larch@yhetil.org>; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:38:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:46322 helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1lalWQ-0003Ht-Na
	for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 16:38:30 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45474)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1lalW4-0003Hm-Gs
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 16:38:08 -0400
Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:44462)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1lalW0-0006hP-9c
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 16:38:08 -0400
Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa
 (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>)
 id 1lalVu-0004uW-TO; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 16:37:59 -0400
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: Jam: which licence is this?
In-Reply-To: <YIWoR/K8IgSNQww/@jasmine.lan>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2104250213150.8414@marsh.hcoop.net>
 <87tunuq1ei.fsf@elephly.net> <87sg3ejmxv.fsf@netris.org>
 <YIWoR/K8IgSNQww/@jasmine.lan>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 16:37:42 -0400
Message-ID: <87h7juje1a.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."
 <guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>
X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org;
	s=key1; t=1619383112;
	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=Ymq0CEcldSWYUGiUrg1Q/CqOTAyYR10nSvpsA3o+kOk=;
	b=UV21FLHTV7W13MTfSycXQEjbeEVshyN8Q8mNr2NhiO2HjS2EBCKgcAAFzsMhNIU3vO6YZ1
	6q+LdGOVswiIgmuNaqaGZtNBpQKT/J3fGv8vlr610MEu3VA3vn3Om0CNfp4WcnhVTKP5w+
	gkboFRhODt0C12rR2SdLIkzn+fqEvtPtOuHh++adcl4xi4BP0HJDHt/cNNRE898k7yClD+
	4zUl96qC96Y0OWxpkRP5mI4yVqSVN52ZDSIjDLEqSwl/DlUL1xuprf+z2aSeq4V9LKR7ct
	U5rNFj3e7CrbyovyEGOatbeEQxUeH8nGMFHvT7JlB/ciuHFKGCepb8UBVKTmsA==
ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619383112; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none;
	b=bAr3b+HkMnOO4hPbgQimWJxSWf3KkHEEjMkaLdW+yaolOm14K7Wc+UTNvzazILqnU7AZD6
	JkhGpuNq2K8ZXKnhmK4HjXvdkQ0dBDdDMbrwOfzZxbtw8Il80/crRcqirNmwkNt8PBCg3Z
	NiFAUMfbb7nHGWoVyQQffKsVaRYpQKbg+hDO3W2xLUi7KotiMeiLUlG3ecLNvXv8TDEtwG
	BBtvgr6vb0GTU669MJQ3i9UCWqAtk1RX/vc8IK1A12gQGVf1LlViTkR1EjrZJFcFzd46Xy
	kKlgWLXllmqobDwqtOYB1pc6Abxvna87aNurvIjfDWmHa3mCphyRrsxmbNUikg==
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: -1.45
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: E78BE252BC
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com
X-TUID: YKBxmH+m/L9a

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.