From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: help-guix@gnu.org
Subject: Re: persistent reproducibility ?
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 14:07:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ3okZ1Esq0qOApWsrExR5+yyTZFWeScRyJ9AH=jSzG10t_9jA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bmsqwuf6.fsf@gnu.org>
Hi !
> concerning my initial question
Thanks Chris!
It is exactly the `guix pack' at source level that I was looking for.
I am playing around.
I have still issues when redirecting the `export', e.g., `guix archive
--export hello' works, but not `guix archive --export hello >
hello.nar'
raising: `guix archive: error: corrupt input while restoring archive
from #<closed: file 0>'
Well, it is another topic.
> concerning license relative stuff
I am on the same wavelength and I almost agree.
My worries seems edge cases and I am maybe applying an overstatement
typical from south french people ;-)
Thanks to Guix community to share their positive energy.
All the best,
-simon
On 24 March 2017 at 16:45, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> 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 “open source” in the sense of “using a license that is
>>> certified by the Open Source Initiative” then that software is probably
>>> 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. ;-)
>
> “Open source” as defined by the OSI means more that just “accessible
> source”:
>
> 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’s software out there with “accessible source”
> 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’m not sure. Of course we’d have to be more specific than “a lot of”
> ;-), but I also see “a lot of” scientific software that is free; in
> fact, I haven’t 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 “Shogun”, which we modify to remove 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’.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-25 13:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-21 11:15 persistent reproducibility ? zimoun
2017-03-21 14:49 ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2017-03-21 16:19 ` Ludovic Courtès
2017-03-22 17:39 ` zimoun
2017-03-23 8:44 ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2017-03-23 15:33 ` zimoun
2017-03-23 12:32 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2017-03-23 16:46 ` zimoun
2017-03-24 15:45 ` Ludovic Courtès
2017-03-25 13:07 ` zimoun [this message]
2017-03-24 5:39 ` Chris Marusich
2017-03-24 12:05 ` Quiliro
2017-03-26 9:39 ` Chris Marusich
2017-03-26 15:03 ` Quiliro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJ3okZ1Esq0qOApWsrExR5+yyTZFWeScRyJ9AH=jSzG10t_9jA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
--cc=help-guix@gnu.org \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).