Leo Prikler schreef op zo 09-05-2021 om 01:04 [+0200]:
> > and insteads prefers something with basically no licenses.
I meant to write
‘and instead prefers something with basically no restrictions at all’.
here.
> > I would find it interesting to know if some ‘legal people’ have
> > worked
Am Samstag, den 08.05.2021, 22:52 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Leo Prikler schreef op za 08-05-2021 om 12:16 [+0200]:
> > [... something about dependencies and copyleft ...]
> > [...]
> > However, compliance is not *that* simple. If you're dealing with
> > copyleft, providing the source is not en
Leo Prikler schreef op za 08-05-2021 om 12:16 [+0200]:
> [... something about dependencies and copyleft ...]
> [...]
> However, compliance is not *that* simple. If you're dealing with
> copyleft, providing the source is not enough, you also need to license
> your own work under that copyleft licen
Am Samstag, den 08.05.2021, 13:17 +0200 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus:
> Leo Prikler writes:
>
> > For the record, what command gives you transitive source
> > closure? I
> > can see transitive binary closure with `guix pack`, but I don't
> > think
> > we do source closure unless asked to `guix build
Leo Prikler writes:
For the record, what command gives you transitive source
closure? I
can see transitive binary closure with `guix pack`, but I don't
think
we do source closure unless asked to `guix build
--no-substitutes`.
Maybe a missing feature?
“guix build --sources=transitive hel
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 07.05.2021, 11:31 -0700 schrieb Chris Marusich:
> My understanding is that the intent of the "license"
> field (which can be a list) in a Guix package is to call out the
> "main"
> (deliberately vague here) licenses related to the code, not to
> provide
> an exhaustive or autho
Hi,
Leo Famulari writes:
> 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 --sourc
Hi,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> For most purposes, the relevant question is: which license(s) cover the
> source code, because that's where users will want to exercise the four
> freedoms of free software. The license(s) that cover the package
> outputs are of far less interest, because that's not
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 packa
Hi Jack,
Jack Hill writes:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Jack Hill wrote:
>
>> I have asked the FSF licensing lab about this in RT #1718940
Thanks very much for doing this, Jack.
> I've also asked OSI:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2021-April/005139.htm
Hi Leo,
I took the liberty of adding a bit more context to your quotation of me
below, since I've added Ludovic to the CC list.
Leo Famulari writes:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> It's true that Guix has a
>> longstanding practice of omitting more lax licens
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Hi Jack,
>
> Jack Hill writes:
>
>> I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for Guix. To
>> build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:
>>
>> ```
>> This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
>>
>> License is hereby g
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> However, I think that longstanding practice is orthogonal to the
> question of whether licenses covering build system components can be
> omitted from the 'license' field.
[...]
> Specifically, I'm objecting to the idea that the 'lice
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Jack Hill wrote:
I have asked the FSF licensing lab about this in RT #1718940
I've also asked OSI:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2021-April/005139.html
Best,
Jack
On 2021-04-25, Jack Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> On 2021-04-25, Jack Hill wrote:
>>> I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for Guix. To
>>> build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> This is Release 2.5 of Ja
I have asked the FSF licensing lab about this in RT #1718940
Best,
Jack
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
On 2021-04-25, Jack Hill wrote:
I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for Guix. To
build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:
```
This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
License is hereby granted t
Vagrant Cascadian writes:
On 2021-04-25, Jack Hill wrote:
I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for
Guix. To
build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:
```
This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
License is hereby granted to use this soft
Hi Leo,
Leo Famulari writes:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 01:25:21PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> In general, I think that the license field of a package should include
>> all licenses that cover any files in its source distribution (by which I
>> mean the output of "guix build --source").
>>
>>
On 2021-04-25, Jack Hill wrote:
> I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for Guix. To
> build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:
>
> ```
> This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
>
> License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it
Hi Jack,
Jack Hill writes:
> I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for Guix. To
> build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:
>
> ```
> This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
>
> License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it
>
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 01:25:21PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> In general, I think that the license field of a package should include
> all licenses that cover any files in its source distribution (by which I
> mean the output of "guix build --source").
>
> My rationale is that it is the source
Hi Ricardo,
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>> I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for
>> Guix. To build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following
>> license:
>
> This is also used by Boost.
>
> I don’t know what the license is called, but the build tool is not
> part of th
Hi Jack,
I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for
Guix. To build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following
license:
This is also used by Boost.
I don’t know what the license is called, but the build tool is not
part of the built package, so I think it doesn’t e
Hi Guix,
I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for Guix. To
build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:
```
This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it
freely, as long as this copyrig
25 matches
Mail list logo
