--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
[PATCH 1/2] guix: Add Zero-Clause BSD License. |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:41:49 +0000 |
* guix/licenses.scm (0bsd): New variable.
---
guix/import/utils.scm | 1 +
guix/licenses.scm | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
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"
--
2.30.1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: bug#46784: [PATCH 1/2] guix: Add Zero-Clause BSD License. |
Date: |
Sat, 06 Mar 2021 11:40:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) |
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’.
--- End Message ---