On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:10:48PM -0500, Alex Griffin wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2016, at 05:23 PM, Leo Famulari wrote: > > What's the story with the library? Are there any programs that use it? > > Not that I know of, which is why I didn't include it (well, also I > couldn't figure out how to tell cmake that I don't want it to put stuff > in "$out/lib64"). And Python users will probably prefer beancount to the > ledger module. (Beancount is a reimplementation of ledger in Python.)
Okay, I think it deserves a "TODO" comment where it is disabled. > > There are some GPL'd files in 'contrib/', 'lisp/', and 'python/res/' > > > > The file 'tools/update_copyright_year' has an Expat license. > > > > And, I think that unless we delete the bundled utfcpp, we are > > distributing it through `guix build --source ledger`, so we should > > mention its Boost license. > > Is the license field for the source tarball or the package that actually > gets installed? Good question. Can anyone answer it? > If it's the former, I have to say that's really > unintuitive. I was aware of these extra licenses, but none of that code > gets installed after you build the package. Note that emacs-ledger-mode > uses the same source tarball and I specified its license as GPL2+. > Instead of changing the license field in this patch, I added a note > about the other files to make it clear that changing the build options > may require the license field to change too. I can change it again if > that's wrong, but it seems to me that the license field should really be > about what gets installed. Good points. My original thought when bringing this up was that we also distribute the source code with `guix package --source`. I don't think we have an idiomatic way to specify a different set of licenses for the source code and the built package. Advice requested!
