Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

sidequest: 0.10.2 -> 0.10.4, fix file picker #87225

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

@leo60228
Copy link
Contributor

leo60228 commented May 7, 2020

Motivation for this change

SideQuest 0.10.4 is the final MIT licensed version, with later versions being proprietary. As changing a license to an unfree one is a breaking change, and I'm unsure of nixpkgs's policy on this, I chose to use this version.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
@leo60228
Copy link
Contributor Author

leo60228 commented May 7, 2020

The Nixpkgs manual says this:

License can change with version updates, so it should be checked to match the upstream license.

However, I'm not sure if this counts for changes from free to unfree licenses, or just for free licenses to other free licenses.

@rvolosatovs
Copy link
Contributor

rvolosatovs commented Jun 20, 2020

https://github.com/the-expanse/SideQuest/blob/v0.10.9/LICENSE
v0.10.9 seems to be the latest currently and MIT licensed still?

@leo60228
Copy link
Contributor Author

leo60228 commented Jun 20, 2020

That's the 0.10.4 code.

@rvolosatovs
Copy link
Contributor

rvolosatovs commented Jun 20, 2020

That's the 0.10.4 code.

I see, sorry for the confusion. Didn't expect it to still be released on Github

I think the correct way of doing this would be introducing another version of the package (one, which would track latest closed-source updates and one, which would just be locked on 0.10.4)

That said I also prefer staying on the open-source version software - perhaps we could file an issue about this, so in case someone wants to use the up-to-date version - they would know what to do?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.