[bug#34175] [PATCH 1/4] gnu: Add gnu-efi.

[Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1475 bytes --]

Hi,

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:05:53 +0100
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

> Hi Danny,
> 
> > * gnu/packages/efi.scm: New file.
> > * gnu/local.mk (GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES): Add it.  
> […]
> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/efi.scm b/gnu/packages/efi.scm
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..3a92370ef
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gnu/packages/efi.scm
> > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> > +;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
> > +;;; Copyright © 2016 Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>  
> 
> It’s 2019.

Ah, it must be a new low of me getting the year wrong ;-)

> > +    ;; FIXME: https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/g/gnu-efi/gnu-efi_3.0.9-1_copyright
> > +    (license license:gpl2)))  
> 
> What does the FIXME tell us to do?  Should this be
> 
>    ;; The code can be distributed under the terms of either license
>    (license (list license:gpl2+ license:expat))

I wanted the reuse the work Debian already did.  They list:

* BSD-3-clause-HP
* BSD-2-clause-Linaro or gpl-2+
* BSD-2-clause-Intel
* Expat
* BSD-4-clause-Intel
* GPL-2+

BSD-4-clause is incompatible with GPL.
Therefore, it's lucky that they say "BSD-2-clause-Linaro OR gpl-2+", otherwise
we could not have distributed gnu-efi.

So I suggest:

;; Distribution is allowed only when accepting all those licenses.
(license (list license:bsd-2 license:bsd-3 license:bsd-4 license:expat))

What do you think?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]