> What do you guys think about these notations and conventions? I know this > will take some work/effort in implementing it, but I think this is worth the > effort and by using this approach we can build a mechanism that automatically > verifies/builds a system configuration that conforms to a policy a user wants > (e.g. if a user only wants to use free software, we can verify this and so > on).
It sounds sound. I'm not missing anything. Sometimes I don't have time to do a lot of research about which license is used. In fact when seeing "GLP" It think it's fine and stop thinking about it. Do you want to require these settings? If so will this lead to two repositiories eg nixpkgs-approved-licenses and nixpkgs-dev or nixpkgs-unofficial ? Go on with your proposal. I just raise the question whether this policy should be enforced to all packages. Marc Weber _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
