NixOS vs Parabolas/GNU FSDG "Freeness" Criteria

Help
1

How do nixpkgs “free” criteria compare to the definition of Distros like Parabola or the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines in general?

2

free means it can be redistributed

If you want the 100% libre equivalent of NixOS, there is https://guix.gnu.org/

1 Like
3

That is incorrect.

licenses.free means that it is FOSS according to the OSI. Unfree OSS that is redistributable would be licenses.unfreeRedistributable.

3 Likes
4

where did you find this information? I just found some vague recommendation in a README in nixpkgs repo :frowning:

5

That’s how it’s being lived. See the discussion around the SSPL which is the AGPL with an additional clause requiring you to also publish if you offer the software as a service. And yet the OSI considers it unfree due to dubious reasons that don’t actually conflict with their OS definition. It’s marked unfree in Nixpkgs.

2 Likes
6

You can check lib/licenses.nix: free = true means it respects the 4 essential freedoms:

  unfreeRedistributable = {
    fullName = "Unfree redistributable";
    free = false;
    redistributable = true;
  };

  unfreeRedistributableFirmware = {
    fullName = "Unfree redistributable firmware";
    redistributable = true;
    # Note: we currently consider these "free" for inclusion in the
    # channel and NixOS images.
  };

So merely redistributable binaries are not marked as free. The only exception is firmware, essentially linux-firmware is the only unfree package you have with allowUnfree = false in your configuration.

4 Likes