How can we specify for a package that the license depends on the use case? There are many free packages, that become non free if used with commercial purposes.
I don't know exactly what puts a program usage into "commercial purpose", but I guess it is a case worth covering. Regards, Lluís. 2010/2/22 Sander van der Burg - EWI <[email protected]>: > The semantics of a list of strings in my proposal is always disjunctive, so > e.g.: > > meta.license = [ "GPLv2+" "LGPLv2.1+" ]; > > means that the work is dual-licensed under the GPL version 2 or higher, or > the LGPL version 2.1 or higher > > For the gnutls example you gave, we should specify the licenses like this: > > meta.subcomponents = { > lib = { > description = "GNU TLS library"; > license = "LGPLv3+"; > }; > cli = { > description = "GNU TLS Command-Line interface"; > license = "GPLv3+"; > }; > }; > > Which means that the package consists of two subcomponents. The CLI is > available under the GPL version 3 or higher and the library under the LGPL > version 3 or higher. > > or maybe like this, if we are too lazy to identify all subcomponents and > their licenses: > > meta.license = "GPLv3+"; > > meta.subcomponents = { > lib = { > description = "GNU TLS library"; > license = "LGPLv3+"; > }; > }; > > Which means that the whole package is available under the GPL version 3 or > higher, except for the library subcomponent which is available under the > LGPL version 3 or higher. (we even can have disjunctive licenses on > subcomponents with this approach) > > What do you think? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] on behalf of Ludovic Courtès > Sent: Mon 2/22/2010 4:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Nix-dev] Re: Specifying licenses on Nix packages > > Hello Sander, > > What are you replying to? > > "Sander van der Burg - EWI" > <[email protected]> writes: > >> What I need now is consensus about license identifiers. If this >> consensus is ok to use, then I'll start modifying the incorrect >> license attributes when I encounter them. > > Someone added a link to this page on the wiki: > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses>. The nice > thing is that it contains short names for many licenses, so it could > serve as a reference. > >> The only thing I don't know yet is what Hydra does when the >> meta.license attribute is a list of strings instead of a list. > > Sometimes one wants an 'and' (e.g., GnuTLS is LGPLv2+ but the > 'gnutls-cli' program is GPLv3+), sometimes an 'or' (software that is > dual-licensed). And that's for the simplest cases. :-) > > Thanks, > Ludo'. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
