Re: About SWH, let avoid the wrong discussion

[Richard Sent <richard@freakingpenguin.com>]

Hi MSavoritias,

MSavoritias <email@msavoritias.me> writes:

>> Well, the opt-in model is in place: As soon as I put my code under a free
>> license on the Internet, I opt in for it to be harvested by SWH (and anybody
>> else, including non-friendly companies and state actors).
> That may be how you have understood it but that is not how most people
> understand it. See for example mirroring videos that creators have
> made online, or more recently some activitypub software harvesting
> posts for a search engine.
>
> As I have been saying a lot in this thread (because there seem to be a
> lot of people in the Guix community not familiar that legal are not
> the same as social rules):

I feel the need to jump in here because that first paragraph, to me,
implies that the silent members of the community agree with you. I do
not.

Mirroring/archiving code released under a free license is different then
copying videos or posts that were not licensed. The two are so different
that opposition to the latter can't be compared to opposition to the
former. And yes, I do mean from a ethical perspective. These are wildly
different issues.

> Saying that I can do whatever I want is a very reductionist point of
> view that I doubt would be acceptable inside Guix and FSF even. Given
> that GPL itself doesn't allow you to do whatever you want.

Restrictions for the purpose of maximizing freedom are different then
restrictions for the purpose of limiting freedom.

> Again as I wrote above legal has nothing to do with it really. Its
> about our social rules and what we have as common understanding in
> Guix.

To some people (myself included), ensuring software is and remains free
IS an ethical rule (along with the contents of Guix's Contributor
Covenant of course). I do not believe any rules in said code of conduct
are being violated here.

>>    `-x archival` does it, but it is too easy to forget and once the cat is out
>> of the bag privacy is lost.  I really think this should be default behaviour, 
>> or
>> at least there should be a flag in the package definition.  I would still be
>> uncomfortable with the last option, as everyone would be relying on the
>> collective of Guix maintainers to not screw up and accidentally leak private
>> data.
>>
>> Dale
> Yeah very much agree this should be the default behavior. Archiving
> should be opt-in to avoid any surprises for the person running it. I
> am surprised it became default actually.

It is not my responsibility to ensure publicly available code released
under a FOSS license is not archived. It is the developers
responsibility to not release it under a FOSS license. (Perhaps nonfree
private channels would benefit from a change in the default behavior but
Guix should not tailor its defaults around such a use case.)

I am opposed to any theoretical change in Guix's packaging policy that
restricts software freedom. This would include a system that allows for
marking individual packages as "do not upload to software heritage".

To clarify. I am specifically opposed to a change in official Guix
packages that allows for this statement:

"Do not upload automatically to software heritage, and no one else can
either."

I have no objection to disabling archival for technical reasons. And of
course, 3rd party channels are free to do whatever they want.

As Felix said:

> The new field looks to me like an amendment of the license terms,
> especially if the field was added by the author pursuant to the
> objections raised in this thread. I would rather not pollute my
> systems with potentially unfree software.

Nonfree software does not belong in Guix proper.

I believe [1] is a relevant piece on this topic. It discusses some of
the issues with adding additional restrictions to a GPL license. Here's
a choice quote from the GPL:

> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
> restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
> received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
> governed by this License along with a term that is a further
> restriction, you may remove that term.

And the rationale:

> Here we were particularly concerned to address the problem of program
> authors who purport to license their works in a misleading and
> possibly self-contradictory fashion, using the GPL together with
> unacceptable added restrictions that would make those works non-free
> software.

[1]: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/protecting-free-software-against-confusing-additional-restrictions

-- 
Take it easy,
Richard Sent
Making my computer weirder one commit at a time.