release-unfree: init #342529
release-unfree: init #342529
Conversation
Due to the NixOS project's current policies, there is a whole set of nixpkgs packages whose code is currently untested by the main hydra.nixos.org. At <nix-community/infra#1406> we started testing those packages, so we can get feedback on what breaks. The motivation to adding this file to nixpkgs instead of maintaining <https://github.com/numtide/nixpkgs-unfree> is that it makes it easier to keep it in sync with the rest of the nixpkgs code base.
|
cc #83884 I think that this should at least be based on I’ll also link my own #83884 (comment), although if it is for third‐parties to build on their own infrastructure, especially without redistribution, then just a warning about the risks may be enough. |
ofborg
bot
added
10.rebuild-darwin: 0
|
Thanks. I updated the file header in that direction. I agree that the topic is a bit of a minefield, which is why we're tackling it in a sister project that the NixOS Foundation doesn't control. IANAL, but our intent here is not to redistribute or to circumvent copyright but to test the code. If we cannot do that, then we should have a conversation on whenever these packages belong in nixpkgs in the first place. |
|
I learned that the nix-community Hydra has been building this branch and is e.g. redistributing Aseprite, which is marked as |
|
Looking past the surface, isn't it useful to know that Aseprite is building correctly? And also getting insight on other software failing to build:
It goes without saying, please pay for Asperite if you're going to use it. There is also an argument to make that setting NIXPKGS_ALLOW_UNFREE=1 isn't exactly the same as accepting the EULA. Or you could say that packaging Asperite in the first place is discouraging people to buy the software as it reduces the friction of building from source vs the other binary distributions the project is providing. The subject is quite deep and it would be nice to be able to have a richer conversation around it. I agree the current setup isn't ideal, but also, please understand that it isn't exactly easy to setup a whole parallel build infra for this exploration. |
|
in my opinion, building all |
It’s not enough. The EULA explicitly prohibits distributing binary versions that you compile at all, as nix-community is doing here. The violation isn’t only on the part of the end user. |
|
I also can do Or I can just download NAR via curl or smth like that |
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
|
To clarify… I have no particular attachment to or care for Aseprite. I’m not even the one who found this issue; @Kamillaova reported it in Matrix and I felt like it should be recorded somewhere more permanent. It’s just an example of a package whose terms expressly and with clear intent forbid this kind of redistribution, which also applies to the vast majority of I really appreciate the resources nix-community provides and don’t want to see that jeopardized by copyright issues. I thought it would have been a simple oversight and that me reporting it would be welcome. If that’s not the case, I’m sorry; I don’t want to cause conflict. |
|
Please forgive my frustration, I was reacting to a larger pattern that isn't you. I appreciate and agree with your point and observation overall. |
|
An alternative question to answer is should we be more aggressive about merging packages that come with "legal baggage" designed to make these packages (and their reverse dependencies) more expensive to maintain?.. We need CI, if we acknowledge the maintainer time to be our scarcest resource. |
|
Looking back, I should have been better prepared. There are multiple threads of conversation I should have addressed head-on:
I prefer that we focus the conversation on (4) for this PR, but I would love to expand on all the other points as well, maybe in another place? |
|
Closing to restart the conversation on a better footing, with unfree+redistributable this time. There was also an issue with the branch as it was under the |
Description of changes
Due to the NixOS project's current policies, there is a whole set of nixpkgs packages whose code is currently untested by the main hydra.nixos.org.
At nix-community/infra#1406 we started testing those packages, so we can get feedback on what breaks.
The motivation to adding this file to nixpkgs instead of maintaining https://github.com/numtide/nixpkgs-unfree is that it makes it easier to keep it in sync with the rest of the nixpkgs code base.
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.