Hi, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> skribis:
> From a5d9180d960d244053bea0d59d6092060fe4c6dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Florian Pelz <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> > Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:08:54 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH 01/13] doc: Explain more licensing aspects of the '--source' > build option. > > * doc/guix.texi (Additional Build Options): Explain more. > --- > doc/guix.texi | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi > index da2423b422..d8886fa494 100644 > --- a/doc/guix.texi > +++ b/doc/guix.texi > @@ -8328,6 +8328,13 @@ The returned source tarball is the result of applying > any patches and > code snippets specified in the package @code{origin} (@pxref{Defining > Packages}). > > +Note that @command{guix build -S} compiles the sources only of the > +specified packages. They do not include the sources of statically > +linked dependencies, dynamically linked dependencies, or any other > +dependencies. When distributing complete corresponding sources for > +license compliance, you may want to play it safe and use the following > +@code{--sources} option instead. I don’t feel strongly about it, but to me, this is a discussion and thus not quite in line with the style of this section as a reference of ‘guix build’ options. As far as the discussion goes :-), I’d argue that the Corresponding Source in the spirit of the GPL is the derivation rather than what ‘--sources’ returns, since the Corresponding Source should include “build scripts”. I would argue that only functional package managers are able to support such a strong notion of Corresponding Source. Long story short: the discussion is not clear-cut and I’m not sure it belongs here. :-) Thoughts? Thanks, Ludo’.