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 #<closed: file 0>' 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 Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > Hi! > > zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> 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 “open source” in the sense of “using a license that is >>> certified by the Open Source Initiative” 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. ;-) > > “Open source” as defined by the OSI means more that just “accessible > source”: > > 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’s software out there with “accessible source” > 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’m not sure. Of course we’d have to be more specific than “a lot of” > ;-), but I also see “a lot of” scientific software that is free; in > fact, I haven’t seen much non-free scientific software produced in 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 “Shogun”, which we modify to remove 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’.
