Andreas Enge <[email protected]> skribis: > Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
[...] >> Yes, or we could just export the ‘license’ constructor from (guix >> licenses). That would allow us to make a custom <license> objects when >> needed, like here. > > Or we could leave it empty in some way; just call it "free"? It is clear > that we will only package free software; so a license field that can only > state "a collection of free licenses, for details, see the source" conveys > really no information at all. So I do not see what to construct here. My > suggestion: > > (define fsf > (license "fsf" > "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/"; > "A collection of free licenses according to the FSF, see the > source for details.")) Well, for licenses that we fail to classify, I think we should at least provide a URL or file name to look at, along with an indication of whether it’s copyleft. Similar to ‘bsd-style’, what about adding: (define (copyleft url #:optional (comment "")) ...) (define (fsf-free url #:optional (comment "")) ...) For TeX Live, we’d use (fsf-free "http://tug.org/texlive/copying.html";) WDYT? >> > (define-public texlive >> > >> > (package >> > >> > (name "texlive") >> > (version "2012") >> Should be 20120701 no? > > There is one edition per year, commonly refered to as "TeX Live 20YY"; so > there is no reason to go into more datails. OK (I was wondering because the tarball name contains additional digits.) Thanks, Ludo’.
