Lets cut this off

[Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1604 bytes --]

It seems to me that there are two assertions in this (long) thread:
* Consent should be required before letting SWH know there's new
  source code in the wild.
* The license of the code gives SWH all the legal rights it needs to use
  the code however they see fit.

As for the second one, I don't recall reading any arguments that SWH
doesn't have the *legal* right to slurp up all Free Software source code
they want and to use it how they want. I'm going to move right past this
one.

As far as the consent-required assertion, it seems to come down to "I
don't like what they're doing with the code so they should be required
to get my consent". This runs directly counter to the license.

Another reading could be "SWH may find the code later on their own, but
I don't want to make it easy for them because I disagree with how they
handle the code". I don't see this as running counter to the licenses in
question, but it does run counter to Guix's integration with the SWH.
The Software Heritage already acts as a fallback location to recreate
missing tarballs and this is something we want to continue to happen. I
see removing the SWH linter tie-in as shooting ourselves in the foot and
not likely to make any difference to the SWH.

On a personal level it is always possible to run 'guix lint' with the
'--no-network' flag or the '--exclude=archival' flag.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]