[Nix-dev] Re: Specifying licenses on Nix packages

[Lluís Batlle]

How can we specify for a package that the license depends on the use case?
There are many free packages, that become non free if used with
commercial purposes.

I don't know exactly what puts a program usage into "commercial
purpose", but I guess it is a case worth covering.

Regards,
Lluís.

2010/2/22 Sander van der Burg - EWI <S.vanderBurg at tudelft.nl>:
> The semantics of a list of strings in my proposal is always disjunctive, so
> e.g.:
>
> meta.license = [ "GPLv2+" "LGPLv2.1+" ];
>
> means that the work is dual-licensed under the GPL version 2 or higher, or
> the LGPL version 2.1 or higher
>
> For the gnutls example you gave, we should specify the licenses like this:
>
> meta.subcomponents = {
>   lib = {
>     description = "GNU TLS library";
>     license = "LGPLv3+";
>   };
>   cli = {
>     description = "GNU TLS Command-Line interface";
>     license = "GPLv3+";
>   };
> };
>
> Which means that the package consists of two subcomponents. The CLI is
> available under the GPL version 3 or higher and the library under the LGPL
> version 3 or higher.
>
> or maybe like this, if we are too lazy to identify all subcomponents and
> their licenses:
>
> meta.license = "GPLv3+";
>
> meta.subcomponents = {
>   lib = {
>     description = "GNU TLS library";
>     license = "LGPLv3+";
>   };
> };
>
> Which means that the whole package is available under the GPL version 3 or
> higher, except for the library subcomponent which is available under the
> LGPL version 3 or higher. (we even can have disjunctive licenses on
> subcomponents with this approach)
>
> What do you think?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nix-dev-bounces at cs.uu.nl on behalf of Ludovic Courtès
> Sent: Mon 2/22/2010 4:24 PM
> To: nix-dev at cs.uu.nl
> Subject: [Nix-dev] Re: Specifying licenses on Nix packages
>
> Hello Sander,
>
> What are you replying to?
>
> "Sander van der Burg - EWI"
> <S.vanderBurg at tudelft.nl> writes:
>
>> What I need now is consensus about license identifiers. If this
>> consensus is ok to use, then I'll start modifying the incorrect
>> license attributes when I encounter them.
>
> Someone added a link to this page on the wiki:
> <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses>.  The nice
> thing is that it contains short names for many licenses, so it could
> serve as a reference.
>
>> The only thing I don't know yet is what Hydra does when the
>> meta.license attribute is a list of strings instead of a list.
>
> Sometimes one wants an 'and' (e.g., GnuTLS is LGPLv2+ but the
> 'gnutls-cli' program is GPLv3+), sometimes an 'or' (software that is
> dual-licensed).  And that's for the simplest cases.  :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo'.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev at cs.uu.nl
> https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev at cs.uu.nl
> https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
>