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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Licence fixes #50464

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 17, 2018
Merged

Licence fixes #50464

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 17, 2018
+2 −5

Conversation

lheckemann
Copy link
Member

Motivation for this change

Some of the licences are incorrectly assumed to be free.

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)
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@lheckemann
Copy link
Member Author

cc @c0bw3b who added nposl originally

@GrahamcOfBorg GrahamcOfBorg added 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 labels Nov 16, 2018
@c0bw3b
Copy link
Contributor

c0bw3b commented Nov 16, 2018

bsl10 could be removed entirely since it's replaced by Business Software License 1.1 (https://mariadb.com/bsl10 even redirects to https://mariadb.com/bsl11 ). And yes 'free' status of this license is questionable at least.

OTOH: why remove NPOSL ?

@lheckemann
Copy link
Member Author

lheckemann commented Nov 16, 2018 •
edited
Loading

OTOH: why remove NPOSL ?

Because nothing uses it.

edit: to clarify, I understand lib/licenses.nix more as a reference to allow avoiding duplication of licence attrs across the whole of nixpkgs, not a database of licences (especially nonfree ones) and as such leaving unnecessary stuff out makes sense.

@c0bw3b
Copy link
Contributor

c0bw3b commented Nov 16, 2018 •
edited
Loading

(NPOSL is not unfree)
I added the whole OSL family of licenses. Granted OSL-2.1 and OSL-3 are the most likely to be used but since NPOSL is a current (non-obsolete) license and SPDX id it's virtually free to keep it available for new additions to nixpkgs that might look for it.
But otherwise I agree licenses.nix doesn't need to contain every SPDX ids possible so not against this.

@lheckemann
Copy link
Member Author

Oh I see, I misunderstood

  1. Non-Profit Amendment. The name of this amended version of the Open Software License ("OSL 3.0") is "Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0". The original OSL 3.0 license has been amended as follows:

(a) Licensor represents and declares that it is a not-for-profit organization that derives no revenue whatsoever from the distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works thereof, or from support or services relating thereto.

as meaning that the licensee has to be non-profit. Never mind that bit then :)

@lheckemann
lib/licenses: mark some as unfree
8fb1e5e 
AMD license agreement (currently unavailable at the given URL, but
included in tarball) disallows reverse-engineering, modification,
redistribution etc;

BSL licenses limit commercial production use.
@lheckemann
lib/licenses: remove bsl10
4ef0760 
Licence isn't used anywhere and nonfree.
@c0bw3b
Copy link
Contributor

c0bw3b commented Nov 16, 2018 •
edited
Loading

:) That's why I was asking in the first place: I thought you believed NPOSL to be unfree.

But it is OSI approved and used by non-profit licensors but for the licensee the terms are similar to normal OSL.

@c0bw3b
Copy link
Contributor

c0bw3b commented Nov 16, 2018

@Izorkin this means maxscale is unfree from now on (just FYI as maintainer)

@Izorkin
Copy link
Contributor

Izorkin commented Nov 17, 2018

@c0bw3b in the package need to change something?

@lheckemann
Copy link
Member Author

lheckemann commented Nov 17, 2018 •
edited
Loading

@Izorkin only that it will require allowUnfree from now on — nothing inside the package.

@Mic92 Mic92 merged commit 48dc8ef into NixOS:master Nov 17, 2018
@lheckemann lheckemann deleted the licence-fixes branch November 17, 2018 14:28
@lheckemann
Copy link
Member Author

Backported to 18.09 c7519bd 51076ed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@c0bw3b c0bw3b

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
5 participants
@lheckemann @c0bw3b @Izorkin @Mic92 @GrahamcOfBorg