Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Roel,

roel@gnu.org (Roel Janssen) skribis:

> +    (license (package-license perl))))

Could you use (license perl-license) instead?  It doesn’t make any
difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
licenses)).

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Roel Janssen]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Roel,
>
> roel@gnu.org (Roel Janssen) skribis:
>
>> +    (license (package-license perl))))
>
> Could you use (license perl-license) instead?  It doesn’t make any
> difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
> licenses)).

Of course!  If I may ask, is the coreutils input and the substitution OK?

> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Roel Janssen]

Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Roel,
>>
>> roel@gnu.org (Roel Janssen) skribis:
>>
>>> +    (license (package-license perl))))
>>
>> Could you use (license perl-license) instead?  It doesn’t make any
>> difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
>> licenses)).
>
> Of course!  If I may ask, is the coreutils input and the substitution OK?

Nevermind, I'm mixing this up with another Perl package.

>
>> Thanks,
>> Ludo’.

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Nils Gillmann]

Roel Janssen transcribed 509 bytes:
> 
> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >> Hi Roel,
> >>
> >> roel@gnu.org (Roel Janssen) skribis:
> >>
> >>> +    (license (package-license perl))))
> >>
> >> Could you use (license perl-license) instead?  It doesn’t make any
> >> difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
> >> licenses)).

Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?

> > Of course!  If I may ask, is the coreutils input and the substitution OK?
> 
> Nevermind, I'm mixing this up with another Perl package.
> 
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ludo’.
> 
> 

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Mark H Weaver]

Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> writes:

>> > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>> >
>> >> roel@gnu.org (Roel Janssen) skribis:
>> >>
>> >>> +    (license (package-license perl))))
>> >>
>> >> Could you use (license perl-license) instead?  It doesn’t make any
>> >> difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
>> >> licenses)).
>
> Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?

I'm not a laywer, but if a future version of 'perl' were released under
a different license, I strongly doubt that this would retroactively
change the licenses of any earlier works.  That's exactly what would
happen in Guix if we write (license (package-license perl)) and then
later change the 'license' field of the 'perl' package.

       Mark

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Nils Gillmann]

Mark H Weaver transcribed 826 bytes:
> Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> writes:
> 
> >> > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> roel@gnu.org (Roel Janssen) skribis:
> >> >>
> >> >>> +    (license (package-license perl))))
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you use (license perl-license) instead?  It doesn’t make any
> >> >> difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
> >> >> licenses)).
> >
> > Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?
> 
> I'm not a laywer, but if a future version of 'perl' were released under
> a different license, I strongly doubt that this would retroactively
> change the licenses of any earlier works.  That's exactly what would
> happen in Guix if we write (license (package-license perl)) and then
> later change the 'license' field of the 'perl' package.
> 
>        Mark
> 

Hm, but this is just our specification, metadata about a package.
This doesn't affect the reality of the package distribution.
If the license of perl itself changes we would just have made a mistake.
We can not be held accountable for mistakes in pointing out a 
license, at least that is my understanding. I guess we just are
trying to prevent licensing mistakes in the future for the hypothetical
case that perl ever changes its license?

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Mark H Weaver]

Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> writes:
> I guess we just are trying to prevent licensing mistakes in the future
> for the hypothetical case that perl ever changes its license?

Yes, exactly.

      Mark

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> writes:

> Roel Janssen transcribed 509 bytes:
>> 
>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>> >
>> >> Hi Roel,
>> >>
>> >> roel@gnu.org (Roel Janssen) skribis:
>> >>
>> >>> +    (license (package-license perl))))
>> >>
>> >> Could you use (license perl-license) instead?  It doesn’t make any
>> >> difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
>> >> licenses)).
>
> Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?

Following Ludo’s reference to “(guix licenses)” we can see this comment:

  ;; The license of Perl, GPLv1+ or Artistic (we ignore the latter here).
  ;; We define this alias to avoid circular dependencies introduced by the use
  ;; of the '(package-license perl)' idiom.

-- 
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:

> Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> writes:

[...]

>> Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?
>
> Following Ludo’s reference to “(guix licenses)” we can see this comment:
>
>   ;; The license of Perl, GPLv1+ or Artistic (we ignore the latter here).
>   ;; We define this alias to avoid circular dependencies introduced by the use
>   ;; of the '(package-license perl)' idiom.

Exactly.  The problem arose when we started writing (package-license
perl) in modules other than perl.scm but that were in a cycle with
perl.scm.

Ludo’.