+ refer to the old nixpkgs commit in a note but use the current nixpkgs for the
actual examples
+ add which to the PATH
+ add `unpackPhase = "true";` to satisfy stdenv requirements
+ explain how _PATH and PATH are related
+ add a few missing words
+ pick the lowercase spelling for `stdenv` and use it consistenly
+ reword a sentence that I had a hard time understanding
+ fix the path of the second nix expression to be included
It's not immediately obvious which previous `mul` definition applies,
and is a copy-paste hazard. Staring the block with a `mul = ...` is also
consistent with the other code blocks.
Fixes#46
ankhers: I'm okay with that.
lheckemann: I'm fine with it. Are we now going to get github notifications for each person agreeing? >_>
frontsideair: I'm also okay.
ecnerwala: I'm fine with it.
disassembler: I can't check the box, but I'm cool with it, also responded in IRC earlier.
richardipsum: I'm fine with it
ixxie: Im fine with it!
Munksgaard: Sounds great, go ahead :-)
qrilka: I'm fine with it
vaibhavsagar: Fine by me 😃!
michaelpj: Fine by me.
gfixler: Sounds good to me.
efx: I approve. Good call on licensing before any patent battles.
Anton-Latukha: Sure. I agree.
From: Luca Bruno
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:30:02 +0000
Subject: Re: License for Nix Pills?
To: Daniel Peebles
Cc: Graham Christensen
I see, that sounds great. I don't have any opinion on the license, just
pick whatever you think is best :)
2017-12-14 17:49 GMT+00:00 Daniel Peebles:
> We're looking at solidifying the NixOS foundation's legal standing [...]
> and as part of that are digging up licenses for various components that we
> host, including code, documentation and the pills.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Luca Bruno
> wrote:
>
>> What's the need for a license at all?
>>
>> 2017-12-14 17:43 GMT+00:00 Daniel Peebles:
>>
>>> Thanks, that's very generous!
>>>
>>> May I suggest Creative Commons BY? See https://creativecommons.or
>>> g/licenses/
>>>
>>>>
>>>> CC BY
>>>> This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your
>>>> work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original
>>>> creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended
>>>> for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.
>>>
>>>
>>> Otherwise, CC BY-SA would force downstream users to continue to license
>>> it under similar terms, if you'd prefer.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Luca Bruno
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uhm don't know :) They are there open for everyone to use and modify I
>>>> guess :)
>>>>
>>>> 2017-12-14 16:30 GMT+00:00 Daniel Peebles:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Luca,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your wonderful Nix pills have been migrated to the Nix docs
>>>>> site, I was wondering what license you wrote the originals under. Do you
>>>>> have any opinions on that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
