nixpkgs manual: Fix license strings docs

The wrong usage of unfree-redistributable fixed in
ea242619fb can be explaind by unclear
documention, specifically the section in the nixpkgs manual describing
generic licenses it is written to use attributes from `stdenv.lib.licenses`
but in the list the strings form was documented without quotation marks.

This confuses people because the package builds fine locally but failes
the tests on travis-ci.
This commit is contained in:
Franz Pletz 2016-02-24 01:37:40 +01:00
parent ea242619fb
commit 7f7ebe5bf6

View file

@ -258,20 +258,25 @@ a value from <varname>stdenv.lib.licenses</varname> defined in
<link xlink:href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/lib/licenses.nix">
<filename>nixpkgs/lib/licenses.nix</filename></link>,
or in-place license description of the same format if the license is
unlikely to be useful in another expression.
unlikely to be useful in another expression.</para>
<para>Although it's typically better to indicate the specific license,
a few generic options are available:
A few generic options are available, although it's typically better
to indicate the specific license:
<variablelist>
<varlistentry>
<term><varname>free</varname></term>
<term><varname>stdenv.lib.licenses.free</varname>,
<varname>"free"</varname></term>
<listitem><para>Catch-all for free software licenses not listed
above.</para></listitem>
</varlistentry>
<varlistentry>
<term><varname>unfree-redistributable</varname></term>
<term><varname>stdenv.lib.licenses.unfreeRedistributable</varname>,
<varname>"unfree-redistributable"</varname></term>
<listitem><para>Unfree package that can be redistributed in binary
form. That is, its legal to redistribute the
<emphasis>output</emphasis> of the derivation. This means that
@ -283,12 +288,14 @@ to indicate the specific license:
original binaries; otherwise were breaking the license. For
instance, the NVIDIA X11 drivers can be redistributed unmodified,
but our builder applies <command>patchelf</command> to make them
work. Thus, its license is <varname>unfree</varname> and it
work. Thus, its license is <varname>"unfree"</varname> and it
cannot be included in the Nixpkgs channel.</para></listitem>
</varlistentry>
<varlistentry>
<term><varname>unfree</varname></term>
<term><varname>stdenv.lib.licenses.unfree</varname>,
<varname>"unfree"</varname></term>
<listitem><para>Unfree package that cannot be redistributed. You
can build it yourself, but you cannot redistribute the output of
the derivation. Thus it cannot be included in the Nixpkgs
@ -296,7 +303,9 @@ to indicate the specific license:
</varlistentry>
<varlistentry>
<term><varname>unfree-redistributable-firmware</varname></term>
<term><varname>stdenv.lib.licenses.unfreeRedistributableFirmware</varname>,
<varname>"unfree-redistributable-firmware"</varname></term>
<listitem><para>This package supplies unfree, redistributable
firmware. This is a separate value from
<varname>unfree-redistributable</varname> because not everybody