I think it's better to specify licenses in a list for each package (packages could have multiple licenses). With "normalized" license strings we could determine whether the package is free, open-source, freely distributable, proprietary (or another predefined class of licenses).
e.g. freeSoftwareLicenses = [ "GPL" "LGPL" "BSD" "NPL" ] openSourceLicenses = [ "GPL" "LGPL" "BSD" "NOSA" ] examples: - emacs is both free software and open source because the license of emacs is GPL. - Qt is free software, open source and proprietary because it's dual licensed under the GPL and a proprietary license -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ludovic Courtès Sent: Wed 4/9/2008 2:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Nix-dev] Re: Licensing policy Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pjotr Prins) writes: > Where do I find the licensing policies? Licensing policies of what? Nixpkgs contains packages under all kinds of licenses, including proprietary binary-only things. > If a package is redistributable for academic use - what license 'type' > do I plug in. Currently, the `license' attribute in Nixpkgs is just a string, so it's not normalized, although that'd be nice. > Or always the URL (like some packages do), though I find that > obfuscating. The license should be obvious to read. Yes. When the license is obviously non-free, I'd suggest `license = "non-free"', and perhaps you can add a `licenseURL' attribute right after for those who want to know the details. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
