Re: Jam: which licence is this?

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

Hi Ricardo,

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:

>> I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for
>> Guix. To build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following 
>> license:
>
> This is also used by Boost.
>
> I don’t know what the license is called, but the build tool is not 
> part of the built package, so I think it doesn’t end up in the 
> license field.q

Are you saying that you believe that software included in a package's
source distribution that's used only during the build process should be
exempt from having its license(s) listed in the 'licenses' field?

If so, I strongly disagree.  I've been a Guix developer for over 8
years, and this is the first time I've heard any suggestion that the
meaning of the 'license' field should be defined in that way.

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?

    Regards,
      Mark

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