| 18 Sep 2024 |
 toonn | That's in an End-User license agreement though. | 13:04:45 |
 emily | that EULA is the only thing granting any permission to modify or distribute at all | 13:05:00 |
| toonn | If you're only building and distributing you're not an end-user. | 13:05:01 |
| emily | otherwise it's just an unambiguous copyright violation | 13:05:11 |
| emily | FWIW it's fine in Nixpkgs because it's marked as unfree (not unfreeRedistributable) | 13:05:19 |
| emily | but I guess something on the nix-community infra is putting it in a cache when it really shouldn' | 13:05:35 |
| toonn | The copyright is on the source code though, not the binaries. | 13:05:36 |
| emily | * but I guess something on the nix-community infra is putting it in a cache when it really shouldn't | 13:05:37 |
| emily | yes, and binaries are derivative works of source code | 13:05:46 |
| emily | and Nixpkgs patches the source before compiling, so it also prepares a derivative work of the source code in the process | 13:05:59 |
 Kamilla 'ova | In reply to@emilazy:matrix.org
but I guess something on the nix-community infra is putting it in a cache when it really shouldn't https://hydra.nix-community.org/build/899731 | 13:09:55 |
| emily | right. maybe related to https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/342529 https://github.com/numtide/nixpkgs-unfree ? | 13:10:31 |
| emily | building and redistributing unfreeRedistributable is already a minefield given the various complex use restrictions many of those licences have, but doing it for unfree is a terrible idea | 13:10:58 |
| emily | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
right. maybe related to https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/342529 https://github.com/numtide/nixpkgs-unfree ? indeed related https://hydra.nix-community.org/jobset/nixpkgs/unfree#tabs-configuration | 13:11:38 |
| Kamilla 'ova | last time I checked nixpkgs-unfree (~1 year ago) aseprite was not in their cache | 13:11:44 |
| emily | which is confusing given zimbatm's statement of "our intent here is not to redistribute" | 13:11:50 |
| Kamilla 'ova | I think this is related to https://github.com/nix-community/infra/pull/1406 | 13:12:09 |
| Kamilla 'ova | in my opinion, building all unfree packages is good, but publishing them in a public cache is bad | 13:13:22 |
| emily | posted https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/342529#issuecomment-2358438965 | 13:13:48 |
| emily | In reply to @kamillaova:matrix.org
in my opinion, building all unfree packages is good, but publishing them in a public cache is bad for unfreeRedistributable it seems like a good idea if someone is willing to take on the risk. unfortunately lib.licenses.unfree often means "impossible to build without committing a copyright violation"; we have it overloaded with a hypothetical lib.licenses.illegal | 13:14:24 |
| emily | so it's a quite significant risk to do it for lib.licenses.unfree even in the absence of redistribution | 13:14:36 |
| Kamilla 'ova | I think adding redistributableOnly option to release-unfree.nix will be fine | 13:14:38 |
