[Nix-dev] environment.allowedLicenses ?
wout.mertens at gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 10:56:54 CET 2015
Hmmm I'm beginning to wonder if blacklisting is any use. Take the (only one
I can think of) use case of GPLv3, if you blacklist that you will blacklist
e.g. bison which means you don't have a system period.
Blacklisting should somehow only apply to runtime dependencies... and ninka
might indeed be a better fit for that, to be run after the system is built.
Whitelisting is useful provided the unfree licenses get split into types.
Currently there's only "unfree" and the amazon one. We need oracle and
On Tue Jan 27 2015 at 5:05:50 PM Wout Mertens <wout.mertens at gmail.com>
> 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
> On Mon Jan 26 2015 at 4:38:46 PM Nikita Karetnikov <nikita at karetnikov.org>
>> >> 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:
>> > 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
>> > 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 at lists.science.uu.nl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the nix-dev