GNU bug report logs - #46784
[PATCH 1/2] guix: Add Zero-Clause BSD License.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 46784 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 46784 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
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

Message #8 received at 46784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
To: 46784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] guix: Add Zero-Clause BSD License
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:57:15 +0000

* guix/licenses.scm (bsd-0): New variable.
---
 guix/import/utils.scm | 1 +
 guix/licenses.scm     | 7 ++++++-
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/import/utils.scm b/guix/import/utils.scm
index 2f5ccf7cea..64d1385164 100644
--- a/guix/import/utils.scm
+++ b/guix/import/utils.scm
@@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ of the string VERSION is replaced by the symbol 'version."
     ("Apache-1.1"                  'license:asl1.1)
     ("Apache-2.0"                  'license:asl2.0)
     ("BSL-1.0"                     'license:boost1.0)
+    ("0BSD"                        'license:bsd-0)
     ("BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD"        'license:bsd-2)
     ("BSD-3-Clause"                'license:bsd-3)
     ("BSD-4-Clause"                'license:bsd-4)
diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm
index 1091eee67c..0a36067387 100644
--- a/guix/licenses.scm
+++ b/guix/licenses.scm
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
             apsl2
             asl1.1 asl2.0
             boost1.0
-            bsd-2 bsd-3 bsd-4
+            bsd-0 bsd-2 bsd-3 bsd-4
             non-copyleft
             cc0
             cc-by2.0 cc-by3.0 cc-by4.0
@@ -159,6 +159,11 @@
            "http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Boost1.0"
            "https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list#boost"))
 
+(define bsd-0
+  (license "Zero-Clause BSD"
+           "https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html"
+           "https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD"))
+
 (define bsd-2
   (license "FreeBSD"
            "http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:FreeBSD"
-- 
2.30.1

Message #11 received at 46784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout <at> zaclys.net>
To: 46784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] guix: Add Zero-Clause BSD License.
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:07:21 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #14 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: Léo Le Bouter via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 46784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout <at> zaclys.net>
Subject: Re: [bug#46784] [PATCH 1/2] guix: Add Zero-Clause BSD License.
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 12:58:58 +0100

Hello,

Léo Le Bouter via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> 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

Message #20 received at 46784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: 46784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, lle-bout <at> zaclys.net, guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#46784] [PATCH 1/2] guix: Add Zero-Clause BSD License.
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 18:05:54 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #28 received at 46784-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 46784-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, lle-bout <at> zaclys.net,
 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#46784: [PATCH 1/2] guix: Add Zero-Clause BSD License.
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 11:40:59 +0100

Hi!

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> 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’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.