Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
https://github.com/dmgerman/ninka is not really an easy solution... Perhaps an enterprising individual could integrate it with Nix so that it will propose licenses where missing and complains where licenses aren't correct (with warning squelch flag in the meta once an unclear license was identified). On Mon Jan 26 2015 at 4:38:46 PM Nikita Karetnikov nik...@karetnikov.org wrote: I actually think we should *remove* meta.license entirely (because it doesn't provide useful info to users and tends to be wrong or incomplete anyway), and replace it with attributes that have operational meaning: People who do care about the exact license of a package should use a tool like Ninka do extract the actual license, rather than depend on meta.license (since, as I said, it tends to be incomplete or wrong). How do the attributes solve this issue? One can specify an incorrect attribute, no? I don’t see a problem. If a Nix package specifies a wrong license, fix it. If you use a tool like cabal2nix and the problem is upstream, then send a patch upstream. I did this for yesod-markdown, no big deal. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
I also prefer the current approach of meta.license = stdenv.lib.licenses.unfree, in some companies it's not always allowed to use some 'viral' licenses (the opposite case of license.unfree). N. --- nat...@nathan.gs | nathan.gs http://nathan.gs?utm_source=footerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=n | @nathan_gs http://twitter.com/nathan_gs | linkedin.com/in/nbijnens On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Matthias Beyer m...@beyermatthias.de wrote: On 26-01-2015 14:00:10, Eelco Dolstra wrote: Hm, I have the impression the license checking code is becoming pretty heavy at this point. For instance, what (realistically) is the use case for whitelisting? Whitelisting a non-free license. Even a basic NixOS system configuration probably has dozens of (free) licenses, and I can't imagine users going to the trouble of specifying them all. Also note that all this license checking is on the mkDerivation critical path, so anything we do there slows down nix-env -qa. Of course things have to be optimized here. I actually think we should *remove* meta.license entirely (because it doesn't provide useful info to users and tends to be wrong or incomplete anyway), and replace it with attributes that have operational meaning: I'm heavily against this. Having the license in the package information is (IMHO) the right way to do this. Removing the license of a package is removing information about the package, which I do not consider a good idea at all. You could remove the maintainer and version, too, if you remove the license. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
Hi, On 26/01/15 14:19, Matthias Beyer wrote: On 26-01-2015 14:00:10, Eelco Dolstra wrote: Hm, I have the impression the license checking code is becoming pretty heavy at this point. For instance, what (realistically) is the use case for whitelisting? Whitelisting a non-free license. Doesn't that also require whitelisting all free licenses used by a configuration? I actually think we should *remove* meta.license entirely (because it doesn't provide useful info to users and tends to be wrong or incomplete anyway), and replace it with attributes that have operational meaning: I'm heavily against this. Having the license in the package information is (IMHO) the right way to do this. Removing the license of a package is removing information about the package, which I do not consider a good idea at all. You could remove the maintainer and version, too, if you remove the license. Well, those have an actionable meaning (namely, who to contact regarding problems in the package, and whether nix-env -u should consider a package newer). OTOH, most users don't care whether a package is licensed under the 3-clause or 2-clause BSD license. People who do care about the exact license of a package should use a tool like Ninka do extract the actual license, rather than depend on meta.license (since, as I said, it tends to be incomplete or wrong). -- Eelco Dolstra | LogicBlox, Inc. | http://nixos.org/~eelco/ ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
I actually think we should *remove* meta.license entirely (because it doesn't provide useful info to users and tends to be wrong or incomplete anyway), and replace it with attributes that have operational meaning: People who do care about the exact license of a package should use a tool like Ninka do extract the actual license, rather than depend on meta.license (since, as I said, it tends to be incomplete or wrong). How do the attributes solve this issue? One can specify an incorrect attribute, no? I don’t see a problem. If a Nix package specifies a wrong license, fix it. If you use a tool like cabal2nix and the problem is upstream, then send a patch upstream. I did this for yesod-markdown, no big deal. pgpnVvU4QOK2j.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
Just anywhere in nixpkgs manual. There is no section that describes options for nixpkgs.config yet. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Matthias Beyer m...@beyermatthias.de wrote: Hi guys. On 21-01-2015 20:56:44, Matthias Beyer wrote: Hi, today I heard that in Gentoo one has the ability to specify licenses which are okay for the system and licenses which are blacklisted and packages with that licenses shouldn't be installed. Despite this is true for Gentoo or not, this would be a really cool feature for NixOS and I think a lot of people (a lot of GNU people, actually) would be attracted by this feature! Is this possible with Nix(OS)? If yes, would you guys like such a feature? If yes,... maybe I can implement it (with enough guidance, though)... Turned out this is possible. I implemented it and submitted a PR, which just got merged[0]. Where shall I document it? In the wiki? Where? In the repository? Point me to the (exact) location where to document this! [0]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/5892#issuecomment-71332553 -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
Hi guys. On 21-01-2015 20:56:44, Matthias Beyer wrote: Hi, today I heard that in Gentoo one has the ability to specify licenses which are okay for the system and licenses which are blacklisted and packages with that licenses shouldn't be installed. Despite this is true for Gentoo or not, this would be a really cool feature for NixOS and I think a lot of people (a lot of GNU people, actually) would be attracted by this feature! Is this possible with Nix(OS)? If yes, would you guys like such a feature? If yes,... maybe I can implement it (with enough guidance, though)... Turned out this is possible. I implemented it and submitted a PR, which just got merged[0]. Where shall I document it? In the wiki? Where? In the repository? Point me to the (exact) location where to document this! [0]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/5892#issuecomment-71332553 -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. pgpyX5kDH7mIy.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
On 24-01-2015 20:16:53, Domen Kožar wrote: Just anywhere in nixpkgs manual. There is no section that describes options for nixpkgs.config yet. I added one. How to build this documentation? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. pgpKUz1KE6c6Q.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
See at the bottom of the manual On 24 Jan 2015 20:39, Matthias Beyer m...@beyermatthias.de wrote: On 24-01-2015 20:16:53, Domen Kožar wrote: Just anywhere in nixpkgs manual. There is no section that describes options for nixpkgs.config yet. I added one. How to build this documentation? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
[Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
Hi, today I heard that in Gentoo one has the ability to specify licenses which are okay for the system and licenses which are blacklisted and packages with that licenses shouldn't be installed. Despite this is true for Gentoo or not, this would be a really cool feature for NixOS and I think a lot of people (a lot of GNU people, actually) would be attracted by this feature! Is this possible with Nix(OS)? If yes, would you guys like such a feature? If yes,... maybe I can implement it (with enough guidance, though)... -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. pgpKCrB4Rc0S0.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
On 21-01-2015 21:21:04, Domen Kožar wrote: We have a way to do that already, but it's not documented:A https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/4389 If someone would document it, that would rock :-) Just found that in the code. I don't think this is actually the same. With this feature (which is good, no question!) you can allow _single packages_. With my idea you would be able to allow a set of packages by the predicate has licenses XYZ. I think both things are ... maybe not entirely orthogonal to each other, but maybe a bit! -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. pgpVoc5mMdcjp.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
My only interest in this is ensuring that there’s a single switch to be able to say “install whatever I ask for”, in general though this sounds like a good idea. On Jan 21, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Matthias Beyer m...@beyermatthias.de wrote: On 21-01-2015 21:08:14, Jascha Geerds wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 20:56, Matthias Beyer wrote: Is this possible with Nix(OS)? If yes, would you guys like such a feature? If yes,... maybe I can implement it (with enough guidance, though)... Yes, I think this should be possible in Nix NixOS. Pretty good idea! I'd like to hear some more opinions on that and if it is a feature you guys want, I'd happily implement this in my semester break which starts in about three and a half weeks! I guess I should be able to get it working in my two weeks of semester break, but I guess I would need some guidance, as already said! -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
I just opened a PR for this: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/5892 Please review calmly (I'm a nix-newbie) and tell me what to improve and what you think about it. I will add appropriate documentation in the PR + in the wiki if you guys like this. On 21-01-2015 21:35:49, Domen Kožar wrote: Well, that function could be looking at license strings and allowing such packages with very little code. Could be a NixOS module setting indeed. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. pgp1nSzE7vq1u.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
We have a way to do that already, but it's not documented: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/4389 If someone would document it, that would rock :-) On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Shea Levy s...@shealevy.com wrote: My only interest in this is ensuring that there’s a single switch to be able to say “install whatever I ask for”, in general though this sounds like a good idea. On Jan 21, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Matthias Beyer m...@beyermatthias.de wrote: On 21-01-2015 21:08:14, Jascha Geerds wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 20:56, Matthias Beyer wrote: Is this possible with Nix(OS)? If yes, would you guys like such a feature? If yes,... maybe I can implement it (with enough guidance, though)... Yes, I think this should be possible in Nix NixOS. Pretty good idea! I'd like to hear some more opinions on that and if it is a feature you guys want, I'd happily implement this in my semester break which starts in about three and a half weeks! I guess I should be able to get it working in my two weeks of semester break, but I guess I would need some guidance, as already said! -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
Hi, On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 20:56, Matthias Beyer wrote: Is this possible with Nix(OS)? If yes, would you guys like such a feature? If yes,... maybe I can implement it (with enough guidance, though)... Yes, I think this should be possible in Nix NixOS. Pretty good idea! -- Jascha Geerds j...@ekby.de ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
On 21-01-2015 21:08:14, Jascha Geerds wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 20:56, Matthias Beyer wrote: Is this possible with Nix(OS)? If yes, would you guys like such a feature? If yes,... maybe I can implement it (with enough guidance, though)... Yes, I think this should be possible in Nix NixOS. Pretty good idea! I'd like to hear some more opinions on that and if it is a feature you guys want, I'd happily implement this in my semester break which starts in about three and a half weeks! I guess I should be able to get it working in my two weeks of semester break, but I guess I would need some guidance, as already said! -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. pgpZg41C_nB3T.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
Well, that function could be looking at license strings and allowing such packages with very little code. Could be a NixOS module setting indeed. On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Matthias Beyer m...@beyermatthias.de wrote: On 21-01-2015 21:21:04, Domen Kožar wrote: We have a way to do that already, but it's not documented:A https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/4389 If someone would document it, that would rock :-) Just found that in the code. I don't think this is actually the same. With this feature (which is good, no question!) you can allow _single packages_. With my idea you would be able to allow a set of packages by the predicate has licenses XYZ. I think both things are ... maybe not entirely orthogonal to each other, but maybe a bit! -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
Another thing to do in the same spirit is to run Linux libre kernel, as an extreme test case: http://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/selibre/linux-libre/ 2015-01-21 18:46 GMT-02:00 Matthias Beyer m...@beyermatthias.de: I just opened a PR for this: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/5892 Please review calmly (I'm a nix-newbie) and tell me what to improve and what you think about it. I will add appropriate documentation in the PR + in the wiki if you guys like this. On 21-01-2015 21:35:49, Domen Kožar wrote: Well, that function could be looking at license strings and allowing such packages with very little code. Could be a NixOS module setting indeed. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Kind regards, Matthias Beyer Proudly sent with mutt. Happily signed with gnupg. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
