From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51243) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csa5e-0008C3-05 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 15:14:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csa5a-0003cz-NI for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 15:14:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49543) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csa5a-0003co-KJ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 15:14:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1csa5a-0000Q2-FO for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 15:14:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26256: [PATCH 5/6] gnu: Add userspace-rcu. Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <87r31jj5tn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170325203017.14931-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <20170325203017.14931-5-mbakke@fastmail.com> <87r31jj5tn.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:13:40 +0200 Message-ID: <877f3awn17.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 26256@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Marius Bakke skribis: > >> * gnu/packages/linux.scm (userspace-rcu): New variable. > > [...] > >> + (license >> + ;; This library is distributed under LGPL2.1+, but includes some f= iles >> + ;; covered by other licenses. The LICENSE file has full details. >> + (list license:lgpl2.1+ >> + license:gpl3+ ; most tests are gpl2+= ; tap.sh is gpl3+ >> + license:bsd-2 ; tests/utils/tap/tap.= [ch] >> + license:expat ; urcu/uatomic/* >> + ;; A few files use different variants of the MIT/X11 license. >> + (license:x11-style "file://LICENSE" >> + "See LICENSE in the distribution for deta= ils."))))) > > It=E2=80=99s a case where it=E2=80=99d be enough to put lgpl2.1+ and gpl3= + IMO, since > that=E2=80=99s what effectively applies to the resulting work. Is this also true for the source code archive itself? As an end user, looking at the license list and deciding to `guix build -S`, I would expect the contents to match what's in the package definition. Is this a distinction we should make? I.e. "source" license vs "product" license. For Ceph, this would be the current license list in the first instance and just lgpl2.1 and gpl2 for the built product. Tricky! Moving the other licenses to the comments for this package, but something to think about. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAljZZGUACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPrplggAn2cEOd03OaT9fakSUSVL+nygeF6PosT1RD681URyH4LeGAuXT5uXd2Vl ThZ0A2uiTMrlNdW7t3aK/IJleCDkk5rwHv4IYj5Z905I+VliBs615+JK8M3uFUe8 6GmM/ZIwZpjxsBqIOddqqtf3pBoe1yIfRe6Bcr3sEZ8fMGRGsczO/3kNmCHMYEzx RbNBY8jbewoeT6HkPSM7CUMU0mHCT4PWQtX/YHWNf13AQZwvW+qSVPTWewhiA4tI 0M1XefOBAF6hA1XO4L7MvcC4Z8I41QxzjFlmUr604GHvXiR2XqbkRib7GobGJwhM 5sbmYI9UwekqzcZYeZssmnyx4EaQDg== =BnR5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--