[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#61950] [PATCH] lint: Add 'copyleft' checker.
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
[bug#61950] [PATCH] lint: Add 'copyleft' checker. |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Mar 2023 16:53:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hello!
Antero Mejr <antero@mailbox.org> skribis:
> * guix/lint.scm (check-copyleft, input->package, report-copyleft-violation,
> linking-exception?, copyleft?): New procedures.
> (%local-checkers): Add 'copyleft' checker.
> * tests/lint.scm ("copyleft: incompatible copyleft input"): New tests.
> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix lint): Mention it.
> ---
> This new linter checks for copyleft license violations, where a copylefted
> package is linked by a package with an incompatible license.
> It found 2818 incompatible packages.
> For example, GNU readline (GPL) is being linked by 71 permissively
> licensed packages.
I’m skeptical for a couple of reasons:
1. It’s entirely fine for, say, a BSD-3 package to link against
Readline (GPLv3+). The combination is effectively GPLv3+, but
that’s perfectly valid legally speaking.
2. It’s tempting to view devise a “licensing calculus” of sorts and
automate assessments of licensing compatibility. However, I think
it’s overestimating both law and our own licensing annotations: how
law applies in a specific case isn’t entirely clear until one goes
to court, and our ‘license’ fields fail to represent all the
relevant nuances anyway (subcomponents having different licenses,
dual/multiple licensing, etc.).
But really, #1 is the main point here.
WDYT?
Ludo’.
[bug#61950] [PATCH] gnu: nettle-2: Add lgpl3+ to licenses., Antero Mejr, 2023/03/06