[Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
nathan at nathan.gs
Mon Jan 26 14:26:23 CET 2015
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).
nathan at nathan.gs | nathan.gs
@nathan_gs <http://twitter.com/nathan_gs> | linkedin.com/in/nbijnens
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Matthias Beyer <mail at beyermatthias.de>
> 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 a non-free license.
> > Even a basic NixOS system configuration probably has dozens of (free)
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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 at lists.science.uu.nl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the nix-dev