Revert "drawio: update license"

[Luflosi]

This reverts commit da2060c.
See jgraph/drawio@5b2e734.

Cc @alyssais.

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/)
• 25.05 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 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.

[crabdancing]

Is this a good idea?

The readme says:

The minified code authored by us in this repo is licensed under an Apache v2 license, but the sources to build those files are not in this repo. This is not an open source project.

It seems like quite a hack if someone can just, e.g., compile a binary and then declare that binary to be GNU GPLv3, but you have to use a disassembler and a debugger. I would consider that a special case of a general principle that, for something to qualify for an 'open source' license, source code that's directly intended for editing ought to be available.

With scripted languages that can be minified vs whitespaced, commented, and clearly labeled -- the line between source code and build product can get a little hairier, but I think NixOS ought to err on the side of this sort of thing being considered unfree. What do you think?

[dvaerum]

but I think NixOS ought to err on the side of this sort of thing being considered unfree. What do you think?

I agree, I also think this should stay/remain marked as unfree. You don't have the Source Code if only the "minified code" is release, which I would consider unfree no matter the license.

[Luflosi]

Thank you for noticing.
I also agree.

I changed licenses.unfree to licenses.unfreeRedistributable since I feel it better describes the situation while still requiring explicit opt-in from users.
I added asl20 as a second license since it is technically still involved. This does not change the opt-in behavior. If you feel that I should remove it again, please tell me.
I also added a comment in the code explaining the situation so nobody naive like me tries to change it to a free license again.