Why is it acceptable to have digital-ocean-configuration in the Guix?

Why is it acceptable to have digital-ocean-configuration in the Guix?

[Tomas Volf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 809 bytes --]

Greetings,

I would like to inquire regarding digital-ocean-configuration type used for
provisioning DigitalOcean Droplets.  I do not understand why it is acceptable to
have this type in the source code.  Reading the Free GNU/Linux distributions
criteria[0] I see this sentence (emphasis mine):

> This means they will include, and *propose*, exclusively free software.

As far as I know DigitalOcean Droplets are not free software (please correct me
if I am wrong).  I contemplated on this for a bit, and I do not understand why
it is acceptable.

Would someone be so kind to explain the reason to me?

Thank you and have a nice day,
Tomas Volf

0: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Why is it acceptable to have digital-ocean-configuration in the Guix?

[Thompson, David]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 5:34 AM Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I would like to inquire regarding digital-ocean-configuration type used for
> provisioning DigitalOcean Droplets.  I do not understand why it is acceptable to
> have this type in the source code.  Reading the Free GNU/Linux distributions
> criteria[0] I see this sentence (emphasis mine):
>
> > This means they will include, and *propose*, exclusively free software.
>
> As far as I know DigitalOcean Droplets are not free software (please correct me
> if I am wrong).  I contemplated on this for a bit, and I do not understand why
> it is acceptable.
>
> Would someone be so kind to explain the reason to me?

Perhaps this will help explain why you can't simply call a web service
nonfree: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.en.html

To use a different example: Google doesn't publish the source code for
YouTube. Guix includes the free software yt-dlp program that can talk
to YouTube and download videos. Would you consider this a violation of
the FSDG?

Guix also downloads a lot of source code from GitHub. Is this an issue?

- Dave

Re: Why is it acceptable to have digital-ocean-configuration in the Guix?

[Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

Hi Dave,

On Thu, Jan 04 2024, Thompson, David wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 5:34 AM Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> wrote:
>
> Guix also downloads a lot of source code from GitHub. Is this an issue?

I agree with you, but together with the new Copilot key [1] that should
serve as a warning to us all.

Long live the GPL!

Kind regards
Felix

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/4/24023809/microsoft-copilot-key-keyboard-windows-laptops-pcs

Re: Why is it acceptable to have digital-ocean-configuration in the Guix?

[Tomas Volf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2159 bytes --]

On 2024-01-04 14:22:48 -0500, Thompson, David wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 5:34 AM Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I would like to inquire regarding digital-ocean-configuration type used for
> > provisioning DigitalOcean Droplets.  I do not understand why it is acceptable to
> > have this type in the source code.  Reading the Free GNU/Linux distributions
> > criteria[0] I see this sentence (emphasis mine):
> >
> > > This means they will include, and *propose*, exclusively free software.
> >
> > As far as I know DigitalOcean Droplets are not free software (please correct me
> > if I am wrong).  I contemplated on this for a bit, and I do not understand why
> > it is acceptable.
> >
> > Would someone be so kind to explain the reason to me?
>
> Perhaps this will help explain why you can't simply call a web service
> nonfree: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.en.html

Ah, thank you very much for the link.  Interesting reading.

One consequence I did not (until now) realize is that I could (in theory)
implement a Free GNU/Linux distribution that would be tied into various APIs of
(for example) AWS and require it to run.  And, based on my reading, it would
still qualify to be on the list.  That is unexpected.

>
> To use a different example: Google doesn't publish the source code for
> YouTube. Guix includes the free software yt-dlp program that can talk
> to YouTube and download videos. Would you consider this a violation of
> the FSDG?
>
> Guix also downloads a lot of source code from GitHub. Is this an issue?

I did not consider these examples, because it did not even occur to me that it
*could* be an issue.  I guess the perceived difference came from the Droplets
having their own dedicated place in the manual including their own type.

My takeaway from this is that when I get around to implementing this for AWS
and/or Azure, I can submit the patch.

Thank you again and have a nice day,
Tomas Volf

--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Why is it acceptable to have digital-ocean-configuration in the Guix?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Tomas,

Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> skribis:

> My takeaway from this is that when I get around to implementing this for AWS
> and/or Azure, I can submit the patch.

Yes, definitely.  There’s a lot to be said about those services, but
they’re just that: services.  It’s fine to include code that uses their
interfaces.  (Speaking of which, see also Ricardo’s ‘guile-aws’
package.)

Ludo’.