zimoun <zimon=2Etout= oune@gmail=2Ecom> skrev: (6 januari 2019 13:09:33 CET)
Dear Mike,

Thank you to raise this concern he=
re=2E
I was aware of this thread and I do not fully agree with the argum=
ents=2E :-)
I am doing 3 comments=2E


First, from my point of =
view, we need to distinguish between the
"puller" and the "pusher"=2EAnd correct me if I am wrong, but one does not need an account to pull
=
a Docker from DockerHub=2E Therefore, I do not see the issue from the
pu=
ller side=2E
Because if we apply the argument, do the GPL licensed softw=
ares on
GitHub respect the freedom of the user?

The issue is abou=
t the "pusher" i=2Ee=2E the GNU Guix project=2E And yes,
the GNU Guix ha=
s to accept to run non-free softwares to be able to
push on DockerHub=2E=
 Is it acceptable?


Hence, my second comment is about the _how_ t=
o distribute=2E Currently,
there is no free alternative to publish Docke=
r image; even if docker
provides a mechanism to pull from elsewhere than=
 DockerHub=2E
It is an issue about money and man power=2E It will be a p=
ity to not
spread enough free software political ideas because the movem=
ent lacks
resources=2E And it is not about be hypocritical, I guess=2E
If I may, I quote the paper from the Guix maintainers---correct me if=

I am wrong=2E
https://arxiv=2Eorg/abs/1506=2E02822 last paragraph fr=
om section 5
<<
Proprietary software=2E
GNU Guix does not pr=
ovide proprietary software packages=2E
Unfortunately, proprietary softwa=
re is still relatively common in HPC,
be it linear algebra libraries or =
GPU support=2E Yet, we see it as a
strength more than a limitation=2E Of=
ten, these =E2=80=9Cblack boxes=E2=80=9D inherently
limit reproducibilit=
y=E2=80=94how is one going to reproduce a software
environment without p=
ermission to run the software in the first place?
What if the software d=
epends on the ability to =E2=80=9Ccall home=E2=80=9D to function
at all?=
 More importantly, we view reproducible software environments
and reprod=
ucible science as a tool towards improved and shared
knowledge; develope=
rs who deny the freedom to study and modify their
code work against this=
 goal=2E


Here, my personal =
opinion=2E Today, people think that the Science crisis
about reproducibi=
lity will be tackled by Docker and containers=2E On one
hand, I am here =
because I think it is wrong and it is not the path to
go=2E On the other=
 hand, I need to pragmatic: people in labs have built
infrastructures us=
ing Docker or equivalent; they wont be convinced
easily to switch and so=
 I think I want to ease the switch in playing
directly in their ground=
=2E


Last, I do not understand how to apply the argument against =
pushing to
DockerHub to the Windows port of Emacs=2E
Somehow, GNU has=
 to run non-free softwares to provide this port=2E At
least to launch so=
me tests=2E

My personal opinion is that it is good=2E Because this s=
preads the
message about freedom, this helps people to be aware of the m=
ovement,
this should be a first step in liberating users=2E


T=
hank you if you have comments and/or if you have arguments that
explain =
me where it is wrong=2E


All the best,
simon