From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: Re: persistent reproducibility ? Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 14:07:13 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87shm6wqju.fsf@gnu.org> <87k27grx6c.fsf@elephly.net> <87bmsqwuf6.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:50250) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crlPb-0008R7-Ca for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:07:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crlPa-0003J9-8F for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:07:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87bmsqwuf6.fsf@gnu.org> 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: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: help-guix@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 #' 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 Court=C3=A8s wrote: > 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=9Cusin= g a license that is >>> certified by the Open Source Initiative=E2=80=9D 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. ;-) > > =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=9Cacc= essible 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 th= an =E2=80=9Ca lot of=E2=80=9D > ;-), but I also see =E2=80=9Ca lot of=E2=80=9D scientific software that i= s free; in > fact, I haven=E2=80=99t seen much non-free scientific software produced i= n 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 re= move 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.