[bug#57598] [PATCH] doc: Update contribution guidelines on patches, etc.

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi!
>
> Thanks for this welcome addition!  Modulo the cosmetic suggestions
> below, I think it’s fine.
>
> Maintainers, if you have something to say on the guidelines, now’s the
> time!
>
>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/57598

A couple things, on top of things you spot yourself and discussed by
Liliana (although I haven't read the full thread, which is getting
rather long):

1. s/tree/three/

2. I think it'd be nice to mention that that the work of freeing
software should not be done in Guix, but in upstream or if that fails as
a second upstream project.  That's easier to maintain longer term (more
interested parties can share the burden), and friendlier to other FSDG
distributions.  Also, software containing nonfree software is risky: we
have no reasons to trust they won't add more nonfree things to it,
putting our users at risk, so deciding to include such software should
be made carefully.  It may be preferable to simply not include it, if
the risks outweighs the benefits.

3. "guiding principles" sounds a bit too serious/strong to my taste.  I
think it's more guidelines we're discussing.

4.

    The source of the package needs to correspond to what is actually built
    (i.e., act as the corresponding source), to fulfill our ethical and
    legal obligations.

This also seems worded too strongly -- I don't think Guix is bound to
the concept of the "corresponding source", although it is a nice
property.

I find the new text rather long but it does add value, and I wouldn't
know how to structure or improve it much, so I'm in favor of including
it.

Thanks,

Maxim