From: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
To: Antero Mejr <antero@mailbox.org>
Cc: 61950@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#61950] [PATCH] lint: Add 'copyleft' checker.
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2023 16:53:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lek9anaz.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230304041458.32761-1-antero@mailbox.org> (Antero Mejr's message of "Sat, 4 Mar 2023 04:14:58 +0000")
Hello!
Antero Mejr <antero@mailbox.org> skribis:
> * guix/lint.scm (check-copyleft, input->package, report-copyleft-violation,
> linking-exception?, copyleft?): New procedures.
> (%local-checkers): Add 'copyleft' checker.
> * tests/lint.scm ("copyleft: incompatible copyleft input"): New tests.
> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix lint): Mention it.
> ---
> This new linter checks for copyleft license violations, where a copylefted
> package is linked by a package with an incompatible license.
> It found 2818 incompatible packages.
> For example, GNU readline (GPL) is being linked by 71 permissively
> licensed packages.
I’m skeptical for a couple of reasons:
1. It’s entirely fine for, say, a BSD-3 package to link against
Readline (GPLv3+). The combination is effectively GPLv3+, but
that’s perfectly valid legally speaking.
2. It’s tempting to view devise a “licensing calculus” of sorts and
automate assessments of licensing compatibility. However, I think
it’s overestimating both law and our own licensing annotations: how
law applies in a specific case isn’t entirely clear until one goes
to court, and our ‘license’ fields fail to represent all the
relevant nuances anyway (subcomponents having different licenses,
dual/multiple licensing, etc.).
But really, #1 is the main point here.
WDYT?
Ludo’.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-06 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-04 4:14 [bug#61950] [PATCH] lint: Add 'copyleft' checker Antero Mejr via Guix-patches via
2023-03-04 4:22 ` [bug#61950] [PATCH 1/3] gnu: libsndfile: Correct license Antero Mejr via Guix-patches via
2023-03-04 4:22 ` [bug#61950] [PATCH 2/3] gnu: libcap: Add bsd-3 license Antero Mejr via Guix-patches via
2023-03-06 16:49 ` Leo Famulari
2023-03-04 4:22 ` [bug#61950] [PATCH 3/3] gnu: nettle-2: Add lgpl3+ to licenses Antero Mejr via Guix-patches via
2023-03-06 16:50 ` Leo Famulari
2023-03-06 16:49 ` [bug#61950] [PATCH 1/3] gnu: libsndfile: Correct license Leo Famulari
2023-03-06 15:53 ` Ludovic Courtès [this message]
2023-03-06 16:21 ` [bug#61950] [PATCH] lint: Add 'copyleft' checker Antero Mejr via Guix-patches via
2023-03-06 22:38 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-22 2:48 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-03-22 21:56 ` Antero Mejr via Guix-patches via
2023-03-23 2:48 ` bug#61950: " Maxim Cournoyer
2023-03-06 16:45 ` [bug#61950] " Leo Famulari
2023-03-06 18:56 ` [bug#61950] [PATCH] gnu: nettle-2: Add lgpl3+ to licenses Antero Mejr via Guix-patches via
2023-03-06 21:20 ` Leo Famulari
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87lek9anaz.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=61950@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=antero@mailbox.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).