Re: persistent reproducibility ?

[zimoun]

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 <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> zimoun <address@hidden> 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’.