From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: persistent reproducibility ? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:45:01 +0100 Message-ID: <87bmsqwuf6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87shm6wqju.fsf@gnu.org> <87k27grx6c.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56937) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crROm-0007bU-D8 for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:45:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crROj-0000PZ-BP for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:45:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: (zimoun's message of "Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:46:18 +0100") List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: zimoun Cc: help-guix@gnu.org Hi! zimoun skribis: >>> One of the issues is that the Guix packages tree will never include >>> some softwares, even if they are open source. Because the authors >>> apply weird licences or non-GNU compliant licences, or simply because >>> authors are not so motivated to push. Even if I totally agree with the >>> paragraph about Proprietary Softwares in your cited paper, it is just >>> a fact from my humble opinion. >> >> If you mean =E2=80=9Copen source=E2=80=9D in the sense of =E2=80=9Cusing= a license that is >> certified by the Open Source Initiative=E2=80=9D then that software is p= robably >> Free Software. There is no such thing as GNU compliance in licenses. > > I mean "open source" any software publicly released with publicly > accessible source. It is large. ;-) =E2=80=9COpen source=E2=80=9D as defined by the OSI means more that just = =E2=80=9Caccessible source=E2=80=9D: https://opensource.org/definition In effect it requires the 4 freedoms: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Now, it is true that there=E2=80=99s software out there with =E2=80=9Cacces= sible source=E2=80=9D that is neither free software nor open source, especially on github.com since GitHub makes it easy to publish code without specifying a license. > My point is that a lot of softwares released in scientific world will > never reach such condition. It is sad and I think all people here are > trying to change by convincing the authors. But, it is a pragmatic > fact. I=E2=80=99m not sure. Of course we=E2=80=99d have to be more specific than= =E2=80=9Ca lot of=E2=80=9D ;-), but I also see =E2=80=9Ca lot of=E2=80=9D scientific software that is = free; in fact, I haven=E2=80=99t seen much non-free scientific software produced in = the CS research institutes here in France. >> We do however follow the GNU FDSG (Free System Distribution Guidelines), >> which may result in some software to be excluded or modified in rare >> cases. (One example is =E2=80=9CShogun=E2=80=9D, which we modify to rem= ove included >> non-free software.) > > Yes, the GNU FDSG defines "free" (as in speech). And there is "open > source" softwares which are not included in this definition (for the > good, for the bad, I am not arguing). > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses > For example, some versions of Scilab (clone of Matlab) with a "weird" > license (CeCILL-2). The CeCILL licenses are all free software licenses, so CeCILL-licensed software is welcome in Guix! Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.