| 7 Jan 2026 |
 vcunat |
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
| 08:19:46 |
| vcunat | *
"Should": there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
| 08:20:04 |
| vcunat | I don't know. I'm just dropping the tests to unblock:
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commit/1551a606a703 | 08:51:32 |
 kdn | FYI: I have recreated the VM (launchctl bootout ... && rm -r /shared/dir) and it seems to work just fine now | 12:11:30 |
 eveeifyeve | I can't believe the apple-sdk didn't have a license. | 13:49:38 |
| eveeifyeve | * I can't believe the apple-sdk didn't have a license I just made a pr that adds it. https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/477742 | 13:50:42 |
 emily | we only use API stubs and headers from the SDK | 14:01:43 |
| eveeifyeve | Would that still count tho? | 14:02:01 |
| emily | which are either uncopyrightable or fair use depending on jurisdiction (Oracle v. Google etc.) | 14:02:13 |
| emily | we strip out all non-free binary code | 14:02:19 |
| eveeifyeve | * Would that still count tho? Because it's under copies or redistribution. | 14:02:25 |
| eveeifyeve | I would say still add the licence, because it still matters. | 14:03:21 |
| emily | see https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/185#issuecomment-2743454971, https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/185#discussion_r2009169668 for previous discussion | 14:05:25 |
| emily | it would be somewhat misleading to tag it like this and also break Hydra | 14:05:36 |
 Randy Eckenrode | The omission is following historical practice in nixpkgs. | 14:14:39 |
| eveeifyeve | So I guess it would be considered fair use? | 14:15:18 |
| eveeifyeve | * So I guess it would be considered fair use? According the google vs oracle case. | 14:15:34 |
| Randy Eckenrode | I consider it more of just not talking about it. | 14:15:34 |
| Randy Eckenrode | I think emily would consider it fair use or not creative enough to count. I’m more skeptical. | 14:16:34 |
| eveeifyeve | Same here | 14:16:53 |
| Randy Eckenrode | I’m also not a lawyer, so I’m just continuing to do what we have done historically. | 14:17:10 |
| Randy Eckenrode | I do attempt to remove all executable code from the SDK. The libc++ SDK package doesn’t even ship the experimental PSTL archive. | 14:18:38 |
 leona | adding the license as unfree would also possibly mean that we acknowledge it being unfree, which could in fact cause more problems | 14:19:12 |
| emily | the alternative would be building out infrastructure for Hydra builders to not push things to the cache | 14:19:35 |
| emily | "non-free + allowed in the cache" makes no sense because insofar as it's encumbered it's non-redistributable | 14:19:57 |
| Randy Eckenrode | We would probably have to do things like the Android SDK, which AFAIK requires the user to provide it. | 14:20:12 |
| emily | I am quite confident .tbd files are uncopyrightable in EU + US. header files could have copyright in documentation comments, macro logic, and plausibly sufficiently sophisticated organization, but I suspect that if we were to strip all doc comments out there'd be very little left to potentially take issue with | 14:21:22 |
| emily | plausible there are a handful of random unfiltered things that ought to be stripped too (but that's just the situation with the overall package set) | 14:22:01 |
|  mrene joined the room. | 14:22:03 |
| Randy Eckenrode | We could generate our own stubs. That’s what Darwin did historically. It adds another step. Headers are more problematic. I don’t think there’s enough in the source releases to bootstrap anymore. If there are, there’s no guarantee they are the correct headers or up to date. | 14:22:28 |
