Alex Vong <alexvong1...@gmail.com> writes: > John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes: > >> I would not be at all suprised if there were more incompatibilities like >> this. Ought we not have a lint rule that checks this? >> > Indeed, in the short term, we could lint for special case, such that > openssl appears as an input for an GPLv[123](+) package. > > > In the long term, we could have the following in guix. Since licenses > are scheme values. I was thinking we can have procedure like: > > (compatible? l1 l2) > > which is a reflexive and symmetric relation. Also, we might be able to > build compound licenses by: > > (dual-license lics ...) > > and > > (intersect-license lics ...) > > The 3 procedures should satisfy the following "laws": > > (compatible? l1 (dual-license lics ...)) > > if and only if > > (any (cut compatible? l1 <>) lics) > > Similarly, > > (compatible? l1 (intersect-license lics ...)) > > if and only if > > (every (cut compatible? l1 <>) lics) > > > How do everyone think? >
I like the idea! -- Mathieu Lirzin
