01/01: gnu: Add perl-inline-c.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Roel,

+ (license (package-license perl))))

Could you use (license perl-license) instead? It doesn’t make any
difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
licenses)).

Thanks,
Ludo’.

[Roel Janssen]

Post by Ludovic Courtès
Hi Roel,

+ (license (package-license perl))))

Could you use (license perl-license) instead? It doesn’t make any
difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
licenses)).

Of course! If I may ask, is the coreutils input and the substitution OK?

Post by Ludovic Courtès
Thanks,
Ludo’.

[Roel Janssen]

Post by Roel Janssen

Post by Ludovic Courtès
Hi Roel,

+ (license (package-license perl))))

Could you use (license perl-license) instead? It doesn’t make any
difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
licenses)).

Of course! If I may ask, is the coreutils input and the substitution OK?

Nevermind, I'm mixing this up with another Perl package.

Post by Roel Janssen

Post by Ludovic Courtès
Thanks,
Ludo’.

[Nils Gillmann]

Post by Roel Janssen

Post by Roel Janssen

Post by Ludovic Courtès
Hi Roel,

+ (license (package-license perl))))

Could you use (license perl-license) instead? It doesn’t make any
difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
licenses)).

Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?

Post by Roel Janssen

Post by Roel Janssen
Of course! If I may ask, is the coreutils input and the substitution OK?

Nevermind, I'm mixing this up with another Perl package.

Post by Roel Janssen

Post by Ludovic Courtès
Thanks,
Ludo’.

[Mark H Weaver]

Post by Nils Gillmann

Post by Ludovic Courtès

+ (license (package-license perl))))

Could you use (license perl-license) instead? It doesn’t make any
difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
licenses)).

Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?

I'm not a laywer, but if a future version of 'perl' were released under
a different license, I strongly doubt that this would retroactively
change the licenses of any earlier works. That's exactly what would
happen in Guix if we write (license (package-license perl)) and then
later change the 'license' field of the 'perl' package.

Mark

[Nils Gillmann]

Post by Mark H Weaver

Post by Nils Gillmann

Post by Ludovic Courtès

+ (license (package-license perl))))

Could you use (license perl-license) instead? It doesn’t make any
difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
licenses)).

Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?

I'm not a laywer, but if a future version of 'perl' were released under
a different license, I strongly doubt that this would retroactively
change the licenses of any earlier works. That's exactly what would
happen in Guix if we write (license (package-license perl)) and then
later change the 'license' field of the 'perl' package.
Mark

Hm, but this is just our specification, metadata about a package.
This doesn't affect the reality of the package distribution.
If the license of perl itself changes we would just have made a mistake.
We can not be held accountable for mistakes in pointing out a
license, at least that is my understanding. I guess we just are
trying to prevent licensing mistakes in the future for the hypothetical
case that perl ever changes its license?

[Mark H Weaver]

I guess we just are trying to prevent licensing mistakes in the future
for the hypothetical case that perl ever changes its license?

Yes, exactly.

Mark

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Post by Nils Gillmann

Post by Ludovic Courtès
Hi Roel,

+ (license (package-license perl))))

Could you use (license perl-license) instead? It doesn’t make any
difference in this case but it’s generally “safer” (see (guix
licenses)).

Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?

Following Ludo’s reference to “(guix licenses)” we can see this comment:

;; The license of Perl, GPLv1+ or Artistic (we ignore the latter here).
;; We define this alias to avoid circular dependencies introduced by the use
;; of the '(package-license perl)' idiom.

[Ludovic Courtès]

[...]

Post by Ricardo Wurmus

Post by Nils Gillmann
Can you tell me why it is safer to say perl-license instead of package-license perl?

;; The license of Perl, GPLv1+ or Artistic (we ignore the latter here).
;; We define this alias to avoid circular dependencies introduced by the use
;; of the '(package-license perl)' idiom.

Exactly. The problem arose when we started writing (package-license
perl) in modules other than perl.scm but that were in a cycle with
perl.scm.

Ludo’.