n...@n0.is skribis: > On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: >> Hello,
[...] >> I can understand Mark’s concerns, though I don’t have a strong opinion >> on this particular package (I find it both “weird” and “amusing”; it >> reflects on how people use those Git services.) >> >> The only formal acceptance criterion for packages in Guix is that it >> must be free software and FSDG-compatible. However, there might be >> software we’d rather not include in Guix proper for various reasons. >> >> One example we discussed recently is a package that allowed users to >> exploit specific security vulnerabilities, IIRC, and at the time we >> chose not to include it. I suspect there are other situations where we >> might be inclined to reject the package, but it’s hard to anticipate >> them; I suspect it’s going to be rare, though. >> >> Thoughts? > > I think we should do the following: > > * list examples of what has been previously rejected or dropped, > there we can list LISPF4 (accepted, never worked, code to be > considered not really copyright worthy, dropped), the recent > black/greyhat / PoC package I've sent, software not aligned > with the guidelines of Guix (for example linux),... > Probably best in full sentences "Software packages which are > intend to be used by professionals bla bla bla ..." Like I wrote, these are quite unusual situations and special cases. I don’t expect to be able to have a policy document covering possible cases. (Linux is not included because it contains non-free software; that’s the one inclusion criterion that’s very clear and unambiguous.) Ludo’.
