add unrar license and use

[SuperSandro2000]

Description of changes

Continuation of #328698

Based on the fedora comment I don't think the license allows us to redistribute the binaries.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[emilazy]

Based on the fedora comment I don't think the license allows us to redistribute the binaries.

It just means that the use restriction is incompatible with Fedora’s licence policy. I think it is still compatible with our lenient definition of unfreeRedistributable, which in any case does not cause us to redistribute binaries (and never should; cf. my standard spiel about how we would need a specific list of permitted unfree licences).

[SuperSandro2000]

I think it is still compatible with our lenient definition of unfreeRedistributable, which in any case does not cause us to redistribute binaries

The docs say that we would distribute it then https://github.com/SuperSandro2000/nixpkgs/blob/a1ddda46fa838b99460ae4594e3e382231ac1e8b/doc/stdenv/meta.chapter.md#liblicensesunfreeredistributable-unfree-redistributable-liblicensesunfreeredistributable-unfree-redistributable

[CyberShadow]

Thanks for picking this up!

Thinking more on the discussion in #328698, I do think that there's actually a matryoshka of two licenses here:

1. The full license, which is the one that the original UnRAR source code comes with, and which includes the problematic "you must remove UnRAR files from your storage devices" clause;
2. Just the 2nd paragraph, which is less burdened.

Some projects have elected to include the code only along with the 2nd paragraph, which does not reference the rest of the license, so it wouldn't be quite correct to lump them together.

Notably, the "2nd paragraph only" variation does look like it should allow redistribution without issues.

[emilazy]

The docs say that we would distribute it then https://github.com/SuperSandro2000/nixpkgs/blob/a1ddda46fa838b99460ae4594e3e382231ac1e8b/doc/stdenv/meta.chapter.md#liblicensesunfreeredistributable-unfree-redistributable-liblicensesunfreeredistributable-unfree-redistributable

Weird. The docs lie, I guess.

Some projects have elected to include the code only along with the 2nd paragraph, which does not reference the rest of the license, so it wouldn't be quite correct to lump them together.

IIRC it’s actually that the licence changed to become more burdensome later on (otherwise any project cutting out parts of the licence would be committing a copyright violation and be less redistributable), but I forget the exact details.

[SuperSandro2000]

Weird. The docs lie, I guess.

I think it is intentional. Some programs are unfree (as in open source free) but we are allowed to distribute them.

[emilazy]

I think it is intentional. Some programs are unfree (as in open source free) but we are allowed to distribute them.

We don’t do it. See #83884, and #83884 (comment) for why we shouldn’t do it as a blanket policy separate to any ideological concerns.

[SuperSandro2000]

Then we should update the docs to be correct. Since I seem to lack some knowledge here I leave it up to the people that are more familiar with licenses.

[emilazy]

I’m still not sure about redistributable = false; here. The licence explicitly gives permission to redistribute and the use restrictions are no more onerous than some other licences we consider redistributable in the tree.

One formatting nit. Also, I believe there may be multiple versions of this licence, and I haven’t checked if the same version applies to all these packages.

[emilazy]

Suggested change

	++ lib.optionals unrarSupport [ lib.licenses.unrar lib.licenses.unfree];
	++ lib.optionals unrarSupport [ lib.licenses.unrar lib.licenses.unfree ];