From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50467) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csdaN-0001xN-5J for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:58:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csdaM-0004g7-EG for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:58:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49728) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csdaM-0004g3-AZ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:58:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1csdaL-000643-Vx for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: bug#26256: [PATCH 5/6] gnu: Add userspace-rcu. Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <877f3awn17.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> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:57:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87mvc6uy31.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: > 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 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 licens= e. >>> + (license:x11-style "file://LICENSE" >>> + "See LICENSE in the distribution for det= ails."))))) >> >> It=E2=80=99s a case where it=E2=80=99d be enough to put lgpl2.1+ and gpl= 3+ 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. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAljZmPIACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPqIGggAvCyyZgkLOUF8a5RRKb657nlGAHRjFHObhRZFVhyb4GmO7dMU9zkNWvqs jBOh+ycc4WP/HWnX5DQ+J1DDuGK1MWG+0kwQGZ09Ici8CuZMHKlqpmvtzFDxUqNX V9Xw66qQrCPDyDlwUbBpdVt5dWt0+w1SIDIlrSjGqsa5VkfVldzEVyokolIMifVx 3BjSWQ4VRmI3fw/AMi3kF5ddhcvS6HJ5y1P9StW5nXSMlQx9qpZNWLaI8tTmVqdA D2WezM2EutMEJJBQlMazLwDWw93W6pGnJslB1yHw96dRLHVpndlI41qaQiO+z9vg LoLEZ2AJFjimowxxGudjoQeHzqZWQQ== =BZnr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--