Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: > 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 @@ … 🤦 As does nonguix.
Given this vast sample size (N=2) of folks "holding it wrong", should we "just" export the symbol, or look for an alternative solution? - Jelle
