| Message ID | 20210225234150.20653-1-alex@zrythm.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bug#46784,1/2] guix: Add Zero-Clause BSD License. | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cbaines/comparison | success | View comparision |
| cbaines/git branch | success | View Git branch |
| cbaines/applying patch | success | View Laminar job |
| cbaines/issue | success | View issue |
Hello! Why did you send two patches here? Do I just take the first? Looks like that's what I should do to me. Thank you
Hello, Léo Le Bouter via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes: > Why did you send two patches here? Do I just take the first? Looks like > that's what I should do to me. The first license patch introduces an invalid symbol. IIUC, Scheme symbols cannot start with a number, so 0bsd cannot be used as a license symbol. OTOH, bsd-0 is not totally accurate either, because zero-clause BSD is not a BSD derivative. So, here come my nitpick: what about zero-bsd? Regards,
Nicolas Goaziou 写道： > OTOH, bsd-0 is not totally accurate either, because zero-clause > BSD is > not a BSD derivative. So, here come my nitpick: what about > zero-bsd? I disagree (disclaimer: I'm the one who suggested ‘bsd-0’ to Alex :-) that accuracy is implied or valuable. Guix maps ‘n-clause-BSD’ to ‘bsd-n’, we get (marginally) fewer requests to add ‘missing’ licences, all is well with the world. It's true that the 0-clause BSD licence was based on the ISC text; that doesn't make it any less of a BSD licence. That requires claiming that OpenBSD is not under a BSD licence either, which is a... certain kind of correct. Kind regards, T G-R
Hi! Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> skribis: > Nicolas Goaziou 写道： >> OTOH, bsd-0 is not totally accurate either, because zero-clause BSD >> is >> not a BSD derivative. So, here come my nitpick: what about zero-bsd? > > I disagree (disclaimer: I'm the one who suggested ‘bsd-0’ to Alex :-) > that accuracy is implied or valuable. Guix maps ‘n-clause-BSD’ to > ‘bsd-n’, we get (marginally) fewer requests to add ‘missing’ licences, > all is well with the world. > > It's true that the 0-clause BSD licence was based on the ISC text; > that doesn't make it any less of a BSD licence. That requires > claiming that OpenBSD is not under a BSD licence either, which is > a... certain kind of correct. This is an interesting discussion :-), but in the interest of moving forward, I applied the ‘bsd-0’ patch. Thanks, Ludo’.
diff --git a/guix/import/utils.scm b/guix/import/utils.scm index 2f5ccf7cea..09be1bf3dc 100644 --- a/guix/import/utils.scm +++ b/guix/import/utils.scm @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ of the string VERSION is replaced by the symbol 'version." ;; Please update guix/licenses.scm when modifying ;; this list to avoid mismatches. (match str + ("0BSD" 'license:0bsd) ("AGPL-1.0" 'license:agpl1) ("AGPL-3.0" 'license:agpl3) ("Apache-1.1" 'license:asl1.1) diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm index 1091eee67c..34a94093df 100644 --- a/guix/licenses.scm +++ b/guix/licenses.scm @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ (define-module (guix licenses) #:use-module (srfi srfi-9) #:export (license? license-name license-uri license-comment + 0bsd agpl1 agpl3 agpl3+ apsl2 asl1.1 asl2.0 @@ -124,6 +125,11 @@ ;;; ;;; Code: +(define 0bsd + (license "Zero-Clause BSD" + "https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html" + "https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD")) + (define agpl1 (license "AGPL 1" "https://gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html"