Andreas Herrmann <andreas...@gmx.ch> writes: > Well, my reason for not including szip by default was it's license. > > Quoting the hdf5-group page [1]: > >> Licensing terms >> The version of Szip distributed with HDF products is free for >> non-commercial use, which may occur in two sets of circumstances: >> Non-commercial users may use the Szip software integrated with HDF >> products to both encode (compress) and decode (uncompress) data. This >> applies to educational and research applications. >> Commercial users may use the software to decode any data. Further, they >> may use the software in internal activities that do not involve or result >> in the development of an Szip-based software product. >> Commercial licenses are available for commercial users who wish to >> distribute an Szip-based software product or engage in commercial uses that >> are not allowed above. For further licensing information or to view a copy >> of the Szip copyright statement, see Commercial use terms and the copyright >> and license notice pertaining to Szip in HDF products. > > So, it's a license that requires some thought to figure out if you're > allowed to use it or not. I thought it would be better not to include it by > default, so that no one breaks the license unknowingly. > > I don't know what the Nix policy generally is, when it comes to licenses. > Basically, I'm returning the question: Is it okay to include this package > by default, or not?
I think you were right in not including the support by default.
Further, szip might have to set meta.license = "unfree", so you need to
allow it eg. in ~/.nixpkgs/config.nix.
{
allowUnfree = true;
}
Opinions?
--
Florian Friesdorf <f...@chaoflow.net>
GPG FPR: 7A13 5EEE 1421 9FC2 108D BAAF 38F8 99A3 0C45 F083
Jabber/XMPP: f...@chaoflow.net
IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC
pgpxI6q07YycT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
