Hi Diego, Sorry for the delay!
Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarb...@posteo.de> skribis: > Nils Gillmann <n...@n0.is> writes: > >> Ludovic Courtès transcribed 1.9K bytes: >>> Hello Diego, >>> >>> Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarb...@posteo.de> skribis: >>> >>> > I have written a package definition for Inferno and I would like to know >>> > if it would make sense to add it to Guix. I am asking because I am not >>> > sure if it is compatible with the FSDG (bundled fonts, trademarks, ...) >>> > and if it would be of any use to anyone. >>> >>> Removing the proprietary(?) fonts like you did sounds like the right > > @Ludo: The fonts I removed are copyright Bigelow & Holmes. They are > licensed in a way that forbids them from being modified and distributed > except as part of Inferno (or software derived from Inferno) [1]. OK, good. >>> thing to do. As for trademarks, please see >>> <https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#trademarks> >>> to determine whether there’s a problem at all. > > @Ludo: Judging from the link there seems to be no problem with the > trademarks after all. The bundled fonts (the ones I did not remove), > however, are provided in a format native to Inferno (and Plan 9) and can > not be rebuilt from source, which might be a problem according to this > [2] thread. Sometimes TTF files are considered source, so it really depends. Unless there’s evidence that there exists another source for these fonts, I’d say we can assume it’s fine, possibly with a comment. Do you know whether other FSDG distros and Debian provide these fonts? >>> Could you also check whether all the code is GPLv2+ like the ‘license’ >>> field suggests? > > @Ludo: According to the NOTICE files scattered through the source tree > and the Inferno home page [3] different parts of Inferno are licensed > under GPLv2+, LGPLv2+, Expat (MIT-template), Lucent Public License 1.02 > and Freetype. > Am I right to assume that I have to mention all of them in the ‘license’ > field even though the NOTICE in the root of the source tree [4] says > that the "collection" is governed by the GPLv2+? Yes, but you can leave a comment explaining that the combined work is effectively GPLv2+. > I could not find the Lucent Public License [5] in the (guix licenses) > module. Should I add it or should I use ‘non-copyleft’? You can use ‘non-copyleft’ in that case, with a reference to <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#lucent102>. Note that the page above says that the Lucent PL is incompatible with the GPL. Are we combining GPL code with Lucent code here? >>> Do I get it right that the build result is a script that launches >>> Inferno as a GNU/Linux process? It seems like it could be useful. > > @Ludo: That is right. I got the script from here [6]. It starts the > window manager and logs in as the current user; it is supposed to > provide a convenient entry point to start exploring the system. > Alongside this script in %out/bin/ there is also a symlink to the emu > binary which is installed by ‘mk install’ under > %out/usr/inferno/Linux/386/bin/ (Linux/arm/bin on arm machines). This > directory contains several other executables. I am considering making > some of them (like the Limbo compiler) available under %out/bin in the > same way as emu. Sounds good. Note that, if possible, we should stick to the usual file system layout (that is OUT/share, OUT/lib, OUT/bin, etc. and not OUT/usr.) Though if keeping the /usr/inferno layout style is really important, we can make an exception. > @Ludo: My first attempt at writing the package definition used > ‘gnu-build-system’. I switched to ‘trivial-build-system’ when I realised > that most phases in %standard-phases were ill suited for building > inferno. I will try to rewrite the definition using ‘gnu-build-system’. OK. Note that you can always remove the unnecessary phases. >>> > ;; build mk >>> > (invoke "./makemk.sh") >>> >>> It would be ideal if we had a separate package for ‘mk’ (I suppose it >>> can run on POSIX systems, right?). > > @Ludo: This is Plan 9's mk (their version of make), which, I believe, > can run on POSIX systems. Though, if we were to add mk to Guix, i would > rather package the one provided by Plan 9 from Userspace [7] since that > project seems to be more active than Inferno. OK. That can be done separately if you prefer, in which case just leave a TODO comment about the packaging of mk from Plan 9 from Userspace. Thanks for your reply! Ludo’.
