From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55920) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csmHS-000275-6O for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:15:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csmHO-0001dn-7P for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:15:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:50226) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csmHO-0001dj-4w for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:15:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1csmHO-0004oG-0x for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:15:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26256: [PATCH 5/6] gnu: Add userspace-rcu. Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) 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 10:14:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <877f3awn17.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> (Marius Bakke's message of "Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:13:40 +0200") Message-ID: <87zig57r8w.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Marius Bakke Cc: 26256@debbugs.gnu.org Heya! Marius Bakke skribis: > 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. The intent was that =E2=80=98license=E2=80=99 would be the license that app= lies to the combined work (the thing that you install), IOW the license that =E2=80=9Cw= ins=E2=80=9D, omitting build-time programs like =E2=80=98install-sh=E2=80=99 and similar = scripts. This is similar to what the Free Software Directory does but coarser than what Debian does, for instance. However that has always been under-specified, and a number of packages list all the licenses that apply to various parts of the source, as you did above. > Tricky! Moving the other licenses to the comments for this package, but > something to think about. Yeah, tricky! Ludo=E2=80=99.