Hi Tomas, Tomas Volf <[email protected]> skribis:
> I fail to see how. I am packaging (for my channel at $work) a software > under "Functional Source License, Version 1.1, MIT Future License", > which, as far as I can tell, is not FSF approved nor compatible with > FSDG. Which of those procedures should I use? > > I could do something like > > (fsf-free > "https://spdx.github.io/license-list-data/FSL-1.1-MIT.html"; > "FSL-1.1-MIT; not actually FSF approved license") > > but that cannot be the intended way. No because it’s not considered free by the FSF, IIUC. > Currently my solution is to use (@@ (guix licenses) license), but you > said yourself that @@ cannot be recommended. Right, always stick to the public interface. > I *could* just use #f, but I find tracking the license useful, so I > would rather not. > > So, to state a direct question: Assuming I am packaging software under > FSL-1.1-MIT, what should I put into (license) field? I’d write #f with a comment above. I believe that’s what’s done in nonguix, Guix-Science-Nonfree, and the likes. Hmm actually Guix-Science-Nonfree uses @@ … 🤦 Ludo’.
