[bug#55998] [PATCH] gnu: Add cctools.

[Philip McGrath <philip@philipmcgrath.com>]

On 6/15/22 15:35, Maxime Devos wrote:
> Philip McGrath schreef op wo 15-06-2022 om 15:06 [-0400]:
>> I agree that the choice-of-law language is less than friendly to users.
>>
>> The FSF has issued an opinion [1] that the APSL 2.0 is a free software
>> license: they say that "Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a
>> license that would qualify" (after problems with earlier versions of the
>> license)
> 
> I am not contesting that FSF considers APSL 2.0 to be a free software
> license.  In fact, I looked at that web page to look at why FSF
> considers it to be a free software license.  But I didn't find any
> answer about the ‘dispute resolution’ clause.  So it seems to me that
> FSF overlooked that particular issue, considered it acceptable because
> of the US being based in the US, or considered it acceptable due to
> some other (unknown) reason.
> 
> In case of the FSF overlooking things: mistakes can and should be
> corrected (this is a free software distro!).  In case of US-centrism:
> err, no.  In case of an unknwon reason: reason is unknown.
> 

According to 
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#legal-details>, "It is 
acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's law 
applies, or where litigation must be done, or both."

That paragraph was apparently added in version 1.129, in 2012, but the 
note says that "this was always our policy": 
<https://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?r1=1.128&r2=1.129>

So it is not a matter of something being overlooked. Some other FSF-free 
licenses include similar provisions, which generally seem to make the 
license in question not GPL-compatible. For example: 
<https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:YPL-1.1>.

> The point is being free, not being stamped as free by the FSF.
> 
>> IIUC, (guix licenses) only defines FSDG-compatible licenses.
> 
> Apparently, it doesn't, given the presence of the APSL 2.0, though
> that's a bug.
> 
>> Certainly there are broader community governance questions
>> implicated, but I don't think this patch needs to resolve them.
> 
> I did not ask anything about community governance?
> 

I meant "community governance" broadly to include questions like, "Who 
decides what 'free' means?" Since I basically agree with statements like 
<https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/>, I 
think there are troubling questions about the FSF's role and how such 
decisions ought to be made in the future. Still, IIUC Guix's current 
policy is 
<https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html>, 
which links to <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> for its 
definition of "free license". Bugs are one thing, but this seems to be 
an explicitly allowed under the existing policy, and I don't think this 
patch is the right place to debate substantive changes to Guix's policy.

-Philip