Re: Question about multiple licenses

[Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com>]

On Mon 11 Sep 2017 13:29, Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com> writes:

>>> Well, from what I know about copyright, that isn't the licence of glibc,
>>> which is the sum of all the licences involved, and you'd have to know
>>> how to find them if you didn't just unpack the tarball.  With pack
>>> output in a lot of cases you don't have the information.
>>
>> Right, ‘guix pack’ makes things more complicated—although I would argue
>> that, contrary to Dockerfiles and the like (which nobody seems to
>> complain about), Guix makes it easier to do provenance tracking since
>> there’s an unambiguous source → binary mapping.
>>
> Does 'guix pack' currently included the source that uses to build the
> pack? Will including the source signaficantly increases the size of the
> pack? Or should we add a flag for building a "source pack"?

It does not.  Guix's idea of "source" is larger than copyright's idea of
source I think -- i.e. the compiler doesn't impose additional copyright
concerns on binary products, but it does form part of what Guix
considers to be source.

More concretely... if this is necessary (and I suspect but don't know
that it is,) probably the easiest thing would be for each package to
install a copyright file in its output derivations.  Then a "guix pack"
would include them automatically.  It would be good to symlink/dedup
common copyright files of course, but that can be a later step.

Andy