From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Wingo Subject: Re: Question about multiple licenses Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:45:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87h8w9l7zl.fsf@igalia.com> References: <681c721c.AEQAPExWoDUAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZoSX-@mailjet.com> <87mv6kj7i7.fsf@gmail.com> <873786zlsb.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> <87h8wiy0ic.fsf@gnu.org> <874lseqy4m.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> <87zia246lw.fsf@gnu.org> <87lglliidc.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47005) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drO64-0003Ei-HB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:45:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drO63-0001aD-Q4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:45:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87lglliidc.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Vong's message of "Mon, 11 Sep 2017 19:29:03 +0800") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Alex Vong Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Dave Love On Mon 11 Sep 2017 13:29, Alex Vong 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, =E2=80=98guix pack=E2=80=99 makes things more complicated=E2=80= =94although 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=E2=80=99s an unambiguous source =E2=86=92 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