From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field. Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:15:42 -0400 Message-ID: <87a8gjvcfl.fsf@netris.org> References: <20160805145804.26753-1-david@craven.ch> <87y44af52m.fsf@gmail.com> <87shuit01e.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg60g79l.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8gog154.fsf@gnu.org> <87vazcce0a.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34864) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXn1r-0002t1-Mg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:16:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXn1n-0004xO-Ha for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:15:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87vazcce0a.fsf@gnu.org> (Mathieu Lirzin's message of "Mon, 08 Aug 2016 02:15:17 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Mathieu Lirzin Cc: guix-devel , Alex Kost , David Craven Mathieu Lirzin writes: > David Craven writes: > >> Quoting FSDG: >> A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any >> nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. >> >> We are not steering or encouraging users to do any thing by displaying >> the source url of the tarball, > > That's an interpretation of it. I think that point deserves a > discussion on mailing list, before > including such change in Guix UI. I agree with Mathieu. Having the Guix UI display a source URI that contains non-free software is arguably steering users towards obtaining nonfree information for practical use. We will need to ask for input from before considering this. > Asking me to start a discussion on the linux-libre mailing list over > this is an unreasonable request. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I'm afraid I must block this proposed change until that discussion occurs. Mark