From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57686) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cseGz-0005t2-5b for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:42:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cseGw-0001hY-09 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:42:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49770) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cseGv-0001hG-Sx for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:42:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cseGv-00079F-Kd for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:42:01 -0400 Subject: bug#26256: [PATCH 5/6] gnu: Add userspace-rcu. Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <87mvc6uy31.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> References: <20170325203017.14931-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <20170325203017.14931-5-mbakke@fastmail.com> <87r31jj5tn.fsf@gnu.org> <877f3awn17.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87mvc6uy31.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:41:09 +0200 Message-ID: <87h92euw2y.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 Marius Bakke writes: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> 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= files >>>> + ;; covered by other licenses. The LICENSE file has full details. >>>> + (list license:lgpl2.1+ >>>> + license:gpl3+ ; most tests are gpl= 2+; tap.sh is gpl3+ >>>> + license:bsd-2 ; tests/utils/tap/ta= p.[ch] >>>> + license:expat ; urcu/uatomic/* >>>> + ;; A few files use different variants of the MIT/X11 licen= se. >>>> + (license:x11-style "file://LICENSE" >>>> + "See LICENSE in the distribution for de= tails."))))) >>> >>> It=E2=80=99s a case where it=E2=80=99d be enough to put lgpl2.1+ and gp= l3+ 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. > > Thinking more about this, the "output license" for Ceph would include > BSD-{2,3} as well (some erasure code stuff), but you catch my drift. > > It makes sense to focus on the license you accept by using the package, > and mention whatever other source licenses that may be present as > source code comments instead. Sorry for spamming this discussion, but it's something that I haven't seen discussed before and it's good to clarify a few of these points. Ceph is also a prime example of a complex package covering lots of licenses. Some of the ".so" files installed by Ceph are produced by BSD-style code. However, they link to the main ceph libraries, which are LGPL2.1. IIUC, LGPL2.1 "trumps" BSD here because of the strong copyleft. Ceph also installs some erasure code ".so" files that do *not* link against Ceph (as verified with readelf and ldd). They are covered by a BSD-style license. These should then be mentioned separately, methinks, because they are installed by this package and used by some of the (L)GPL code. Most of the Python libraries in Ceph are actually LGPL2.1+. These use the main Ceph libraries, which are LGPL2.1 (no plus). AFAIU, the latter still "wins", or should LGPL2.1+ be mentioned separately? Please correct me if I'm wrong in any of these assumptions :-) Perhaps the manual could be improved with a few clarification points, although it's a complex issue that will vary on a case-by-case basis. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAljZoxUACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPoT3gf9FABhU08HSI9pTklz5A0y0+grwjNcWdV2X1+mstjT8LAohcK6uJ5fgWRg w7afpntZJfKoXnC4yfLVSq2cEbOW0YTydHoHwulKuDqSTUs8czjAz+prOLmAmAZW +SJX3ZBJIcjftf4LfwMGlLE2dMk57KifmhCELU8NgbcEFGMfHejMRVfEbN665ca8 2qJMcDxy5MU1vyDA067logRZ9T0AbDjNi4IEPONwrbO1J1F4P0CYfM2IshtWcTId gJ00JKCEvKjtmR2NrcP90XFCaXccweYuKTtG/sTEt6K84pSg7r32/gWS8XkGPhZF 9++xbowTMGh3euvNMUqgF2hM/+Dchg== =Vu0m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--