Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

licenses.nasa13: mark as free #52629

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

marsam
Copy link
Contributor

@marsam marsam commented Dec 21, 2018

Motivation for this change

NASA-1.3 allows distribution

https://opensource.org/licenses/NASA-1.3

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Dec 21, 2018

cc @lheckemann

@alyssais
Copy link
Member

alyssais commented Dec 21, 2018

It’s not a free license, though. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NASA

@marsam
Copy link
Contributor Author

marsam commented Dec 21, 2018

I think "free" in licenses.nix means "redistributable" (specifically "Hydra can redistribute") and is not strictly equivalent to "free" of the FSF definition. See #18557 #20256

Unfree package that cannot be redistributed. You can build it yourself, but you cannot redistribute the output of the derivation. Thus it cannot be included in the Nixpkgs channel.
https://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/#sec-meta-license

@alyssais
Copy link
Member

I don’t think that’s right. If that were true, there would be no reason for unfreeRedistributable to exist.

@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Dec 21, 2018

unfreeRedistributable is used for re-distributable binaries, here we also have the source in addition so it is a slightly different case.

@alyssais
Copy link
Member

alyssais commented Dec 21, 2018

In cases where we have access to the source code, but the software isn’t available under a free license, what we have been doing so far (as far as I can tell), is to mark that software as unfree.

Examples:

The last ~3 are particularly relevant because they are examples of software where redistribution is explicitly allowed, but the software is still not available under a free license, and so is therefore marked as unfree.

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Dec 22, 2018

I'm fairly certain that our "free" has historically been roughly what FSF, OSI and DFSG consider free.

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Dec 22, 2018

We have some vague "free software" description in docs. We might document that more precisely... but it's a bit difficult to describe unless we e.g. write we mean the same as one particular of the organizations above.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants