Hi, On 26/01/15 14:19, Matthias Beyer wrote:
> On 26-01-2015 14:00:10, Eelco Dolstra wrote: >> Hm, I have the impression the license checking code is becoming pretty heavy >> at >> this point. For instance, what (realistically) is the use case for >> whitelisting? > > Whitelisting a non-free license. Doesn't that also require whitelisting all free licenses used by a configuration? >> I actually think we should *remove* meta.license entirely (because it doesn't >> provide useful info to users and tends to be wrong or incomplete anyway), and >> replace it with attributes that have operational meaning: > > I'm heavily against this. Having the license in the package > information is (IMHO) the right way to do this. > > Removing the license of a package is removing information about the > package, which I do not consider a good idea at all. You could remove > the maintainer and version, too, if you remove the license. Well, those have an actionable meaning (namely, who to contact regarding problems in the package, and whether "nix-env -u" should consider a package newer). OTOH, most users don't care whether a package is licensed under the 3-clause or 2-clause BSD license. People who do care about the exact license of a package should use a tool like Ninka do extract the actual license, rather than depend on meta.license (since, as I said, it tends to be incomplete or wrong). -- Eelco Dolstra | LogicBlox, Inc. | http://nixos.org/~eelco/ _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev