From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id UGxHAb6gnmEJWQAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 21:29:50 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id WEucOL2gnmFkPAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 20:29:49 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B418F2AA93 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 21:29:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55876 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mpyto-0006Jj-TU for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:29:48 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53294) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mpytU-0006JP-LZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:29:28 -0500 Received: from [2a00:1450:4864:20::32b] (port=53878 helo=mail-wm1-x32b.google.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mpytT-0000Qd-1a for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:29:28 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id y196so3605736wmc.3 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:29:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T+W9O+YT7MOq9BNlIh06i291jl7PtQvLb+Myr8BLu/s=; b=DWnovlk4xI5egzJTMvix7L9omrxR19Tpvvf2g6OoTsDwLJY4ez9Cwka+bA2SI4B4ZF itX8ZRGoDSrlBWJQYzi4mzb3K6q+rAKmTt5K1K8rzmef0sXWryqt4sJVtC9hAtGDPB4C rBIrp99DEDeZuA4l6OYMKPGVWx1miAu20XGOgJiEwEdAOhk9vl7hTXVFRv3R6zk7iY1M FKjxZX9gekqD1W0Nw4h+usNhTJIUMnHBMvgU76y5MUYHr9Rr5lF8Lu43c2cRJxNXdUlV VPLPMLky/h5enjd++Oe25/vsF43EyPEoVT4T8YyGyrxndj4kESPWZSo4qbE3cCfEcd9u w1MQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T+W9O+YT7MOq9BNlIh06i291jl7PtQvLb+Myr8BLu/s=; b=AHDBuXQa8eB2eSeEgvYDZzfyGTwRy8uQ01ngidb1OYFgW5Pv/ZzZCLSN10HTfQifFv Z3Un/sBWcooiCiy638OU3OnG5jSiLfjK95CLvxBayHa8ExUCSkBrPqPQLBl0JKSD8QUY DZurQA5skIUnDVFUZh5E+0ZWfo46ziysmZkB6kn5oWfY+239Vm6+gkWwc+JTVUluMUG6 JfmtZpHLxmeY1OdeZOQDpiN+KPph4uOe7M1fgR60WTF+LAUi5Q25galV9qKA8it9VgZ/ Fir0l2uYnZvQBvpB3czkohbcgBdLbyydHEh7WiE3QlWVrtHcTTUWHdXu9Dd4+rntrnD5 EkIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530lr7yy6hsMN2UaoiKjLgq+ENmQUxHAUjAaUskdnGmNzJ9zjYLH SvtQe3vNXx2o+qNntNna2zI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzGZyxhLrnGYp9uKlUrRn+MJVn/G7A6lXgYv67g6ua52nSnrugduYLg9IDUTlJ03i64KjnIBg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:34c2:: with SMTP id d2mr19428032wmq.142.1637785765578; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:29:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f18sm814509wre.7.2021.11.24.12.29.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:29:25 -0800 (PST) From: zimoun To: "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" Subject: Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?) In-Reply-To: <20211124144059.t36mensuqxx7ug5l@pelzflorian.localdomain> References: <87v90no8n1.fsf@nckx> <20211121023324.0a3ba29a@primarylaptop.localdomain> <20211121103548.yi5lo6ymcnm22gfm@pelzflorian.localdomain> <20211122180255.ipauqebmoiyw4bb3@pelzflorian.localdomain> <87bl2aixvx.fsf@gnu.org> <20211124005004.109ef096@primarylaptop.localdomain> <20211124014519.1e227941@primarylaptop.localdomain> <20211124120136.l2dmta332z7c6bmx@pelzflorian.localdomain> <20211124123256.guutnb6zgskejbya@pelzflorian.localdomain> <867dcxu37n.fsf@gmail.com> <20211124144059.t36mensuqxx7ug5l@pelzflorian.localdomain> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 21:25:50 +0100 Message-ID: <86r1b5ti5t.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2a00:1450:4864:20::32b (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::32b; envelope-from=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm1-x32b.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -12 X-Spam_score: -1.3 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PDS_HP_HELO_NORDNS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, raid5atemyhomework@protonmail.com, Domagoj Stolfa Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1637785789; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=T+W9O+YT7MOq9BNlIh06i291jl7PtQvLb+Myr8BLu/s=; b=pYisSeb8S2ngMg5xbtDBW1sAbVAJi2yVOOoFuGP3eGiznocW1Zz4wUlXLYPRF9QnQ6/LAX k0KKXRpiwAkgHiXFNf08frjODSKRSxtAGBfI/IiK6WmYG4URZrSkCYisMisP6Cxjg1w4ER hRxyOQQg18VTEY7QiJczXcjIMoXTvJgWGJME+BMHwCg3IG0+knB+SItPvOe6VN+X3Gy/FV XpVbmlLQgTid5CQqneXSJz3CVIhmkFhnmgfdlTQUSFEMcklIqqq31bOkGOPVYpGT9p6U9W wSwTuJ3ssnYGcKPkLCXVwl6jP97/v+gdLvwl3I1jijoHE5tGTkxPzYz7ExECGQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1637785789; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=lYPfm5Vvr8yJDjjG6ZSQotn53dhdSSl1uF4GYkrVPCllqKQo662P+di7dN+C6woW8vcUqp 8OxZ91y09S18ZpIxtRjKRad6+jtBwgvaa/z2QEp7rtG8Gh3KCac3wuHYTzEPSz7rwJdUhu k8j7qHciNq3RvIv/TFinbYKU6N0j4kFE9Ikn/Iu2W8Y6WkTWK4D9xnVjq5MKvzQFCCBQ3V etbouTEIttC8NfF8g3gG4uc98LyZvwRUQ4dGYv0trPwWhusjaABxy1TbkQeYnwkCO0n0te w35lWwPJHW0dGEYQEKalqiFDlQMvJkHBXttT2z4WBkXP19osN8/GF3jq4T1flQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=DWnovlk4; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.79 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=DWnovlk4; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: B418F2AA93 X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: +onWRPmfNuoQ Hi Florian, On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 15:40, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" wrote: >>> I don't know if that convinces maintainers to change decisions. >> >> This decision is consistent with the analysis [1] done by Software >> Conservancy Freedom, at least. > > I did not speak about one decision. About which decision are you talking about? I am sorry if I have misread or misunderstood. From my readings, the second part of that thread is an appeal about previous clear decisions: 1. distributing source of ZFS 2. not-distributing substitutes of ZFS Both are consistent with the legal analysis of SFC [1]. 1: > What I meant is that maybe Denis argued =E2=80=9Cdynamic linking creates a > derivative work=E2=80=9D if and only if =E2=80=9CZFS source code is a der= ivative > work of Linux=E2=80=9D. I have no opinion; because IANAL. As Jelle jokingly said on IRC [2], it is a typical WANAX session*. :-) As I suggested here [3], because WANAL, I do not understand what we are discussing and on which legal basis this discussion tries to appeal the decision made by Guix long time ago about ZFS based on [1], among other things. The appeal cannot happen here but it has to be raised to FSF lawyers. IMHO. I mean, it appears sane to openly discuss any topic, for sure, and freely rehash previous decisions. However, here I miss what could be the conclusion because a) it is legal speculations since the case have never been pleaded in Court and b) many of us are not qualified to parse all lengthy judicial documents =E2=80=93 what a lawyer is daily doing, IIUC friends=E2=80=99 job. :-) 2: 3: Cheers, simon *pattern of WANAX session: =C2=ABI am not a X but my strong opinion on related-to-X is =E2=80=A6=C2=BB. :-)