From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id GFW8NebDjmDjFwEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 17:23:18 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 8FRmMebDjmAPZgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 15:23:18 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8077F26B34 for ; Sun, 2 May 2021 17:23:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:52480 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldDwD-00063H-Mr for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 11:23:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55844) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldDty-0003aq-Bj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 11:21:00 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:47343) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldDtv-0007e4-NY; Sun, 02 May 2021 11:20:58 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2635C00E8; Sun, 2 May 2021 11:20:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 02 May 2021 11:20:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=MKvUf5RkE4JiHMJ8mFZrkpTf 6uUgQgheK/9nycTacHA=; b=VCbttGN6WoknKfBbCLEjeiESrHCqQ6rKjpgy6eTo TlQP4RZYOoxj2OHzFnau4aXeMY5Dk4iUHWbnVB0XEcUZZrPl4EzvA3cKvP4cD09W 05S2E60L5DjC0SyR7a5xKbypTxj1W7xDL6QN9kLR1B8yMFr8Uuio0Fom082p54kN 904= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=MKvUf5 RkE4JiHMJ8mFZrkpTf6uUgQgheK/9nycTacHA=; b=quvQz5imDT8kQRyR4UuJHk TV7r8DdAGjF5dVcc2bSK1EOBvl0gnav1KAI1dRgdix7G/gIWHlKNlckt0uv2/OzM nWm0uHNKJkiNPoykWcMUW4x+87hfgYYdD9VT1GrL/VSjjBWw33y8XmLo8aP3INdo EhT/nf0ov2obxKpIm02x87gvn5KTkv1I+wQkGLewXeRrMPhNEAA+QBi+iiT63736 n5RFZtWd0x5yzhyLJ0zPQj1Lexbb9iIRjQesov1wAkEorYK/XwgQbPG8ZVAOm7tp gpvjdGXBcCbbrhYE4cxLiEZQcV9TCYqCQIJLCl+opLiFuBQZ6U8/H0ryeSfpuO2g == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdefuddgudefkecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepnfgvohcu hfgrmhhulhgrrhhiuceolhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvgeqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepueekkedtffdvtddugeejgedtvefhueefiedvjeeitdeigedtveejvdejheff vefgnecukfhppeduiedvrddvudejrdeffedrudduvdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (d-162-217-33-112.ct.cpe.atlanticbb.net [162.217.33.112]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 2 May 2021 11:20:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 May 2021 11:20:51 -0400 From: Leo Famulari To: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: Jam: which licence is this? Message-ID: References: <87tunuq1ei.fsf@elephly.net> <87sg3ejmxv.fsf@netris.org> <87h7juje1a.fsf@netris.org> <874kflrb1t.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874kflrb1t.fsf@netris.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.26; envelope-from=leo@famulari.name; helo=out2-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619968998; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=MKvUf5RkE4JiHMJ8mFZrkpTf6uUgQgheK/9nycTacHA=; b=l5UUX96Vn+tbjzIIlEaifdMSt8QNVneLHPZNXHapJFQDSfu3tdwEK7GrMPkVWrHK8hPnZf wmmWTV2tShqGsfBi5a/RLBhxFgLOYbyIsVlbpf5B30+tynqaxR0n08QybhmU+RmH1rtiiX AO7311VVcEsjhHdYudIqHMeSLDoTUB2RR4Y+B8ssoUNijs437BIFJ1JamUbn5QEYW0wqUN o7UX+VlYsNH/pOXARoIydP3NrROFQoKaiRuDrxOD/HrV+oTdN1BwpI30YfIMt/Ky+2y2EN VD1iYQbgkACNITY26QpLIZKcnVRMDtPtYkMTdSyR8BG8+U4i5Mv0g+Y82YVfbA== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619968998; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=pKuETaPP9TNZ684PqZpebaExHDtOEufbepbfdyy39pLt9fP2VSRmPBji4oU15hA/vmKdxm urUjOkJyRNcHHz/uvyGto0jrIiglYD/NvFpdltFnJj/Zl3A19KTV142nmp2EPlc6yqj4UG 2nK1ygudxk9M+V4eBgduUXEIwPH/jQ7nK+mhNIyLvxSc6A/JyaGov+b9F/bcB+bNKeF+yz DQqbgS0NMV+GFu5SaSs5KlEQlFWQpQHIOlTP6IGLvVxjjPFBRAE5AA5SMX0QXC7NxttGMC f7N4VqAFaaGGN0gQjqwCIR2Zm1GcdzQDxGvkZ2DG3ICEbF9/+7dhicM4IBQHbA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=famulari.name header.s=mesmtp header.b=VCbttGN6; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm2 header.b=quvQz5im; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 1.04 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=famulari.name header.s=mesmtp header.b=VCbttGN6; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm2 header.b=quvQz5im; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 8077F26B34 X-Spam-Score: 1.04 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: cLcTRLolugsG On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:53:07AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > My understanding is that the 'license' field of a package in Guix has > _always_ been meant to summarize the license restrictions associated > with the package source (the output of "guix build --source"), and > *not* merely the package outputs. My understanding is that the license field describes the license that the package is redistributed under, which is typically a single license, but could be a dual (or multiple) license if that is the case. The manual section "package Reference" says: The license of the package; a value from (guix licenses), or a list of such values. It's the license of the package, overall. Not of every single file in the source code. > Really? Can you give some examples of this from our core packages? The 'hello' package is not core, but it is a typical Autotools-based package, and the core packages will be similar. It is, overall, GPL3 or later. However, the component source files bear these other licenses too: aclocal.m4: An unnamed permissive license AUTHORS: An unnamed permissive license configure: An unnamed permissive license configure.ac: An unnamed permissive license INSTALL: An unnamed permissive license maint.mk: An unnamed permissive license Makefile.am, Makefile.in: An unnamed permissive license README, README-dev: An unnamed permissive license THANKS: An unnamed permissive license build-aux/compile: GPL2+ build-aux/config.rpath: An unnamed permissive license build-aux/depcomp: GPL2+ build-aux/install-sh: Expat license build-aux/mdate-sh: GPL2+ build-aux/missing: GPL2+ build-aux/test-driver: GPL2+ doc: Some files bear the GFDL m4: Maybe unnamed permissive licenses (I'm getting tired) po/Makefile.in.in: The "GPL" with no version mentioned. I assume GPL1. po/POTFILES.in: An unnamed permissive license tests/*: An unnamed permissive license Some of those unnamed permissive licenses are the same as each other, some are different. It would be unhelpful if the package definition's license field said "gpl3+ gpl2+ gpl1 non-copyleft expat gfdl". Nobody would be able to answer the question "What is the license of the 'hello' package?" > The 'license' field can only mean one of these two things, and I think > it's fairly clear which one it should be. Moreover, I think that this > is what it has always meant in Guix. If not, that's a problem. My survey of the "hello" package shows that the license field in Guix is about the overall license of the program, not an exhaustive list of the many licenses used for various components of the source code. I don't think it's a problem to not mention those licenses in the package definition. When the user acquires the source code, they still get the benefits of the freely licensed components. Nothing is being hidden. The suggestion that our package definitions' license field should mention every license contain in the source code has no precedent in Guix, at least since I joined. I don't there is a demonstrated benefit to making that change.