Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Violations of GPL in GuixSD packaging design

[Joshua Gay]

Despite his tone coming across as somewhat aggressive and combative at
times, I am going to, as Wikipedians say, "assume good faith", and that
Jean Louis is simply trying to help remove any doubt people might have
that GuixSD is properly complying with licenses. From everything I have
seen, it seems to me like Guix SDis in compliance. But, depending on how
you go about downloading things it might be less obvoius to some people.
As such, it might make sense to see if GuixSD might make some
imrpovements to help make things chrystal clear to those who might have
an inkling of doubt.

Here are some of my thoughts to specific points raised.

>
> Thank you much. I could now unpack the sources. And I could verify that
> patched wicd sources are on the GuixSD substitute distribution website.

I believe that all resources (binaries, sources, and documentation) are
all on the same Web site, however, that things are spread out across
differet parts of that site  (www.gnu.org, hydra.gnu.org, etc), correct?

> I don't agree quite that packages shall be built in such manner
> that one is forced to use guix archive -x solution. Because I am not
> sure if guix packaging fits into the definition of "medium customarily
> used for software interchange".

A medium customarily used for software interchange does not refer to the
format of the files, it refers to the physical medium, e.g., compact disks.


> 
> - the wicd scripts have been patched. One shall observe the GPL2, where
>   it says in section 2, " You must cause the modified files to carry
>   prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of
>   any change." - however on the modified file (as test), named:
>   wicd-curses.py -- there is no such prominent notice. The file is from
>   1970, I doubt there is any reference to date either. I have looked
>   into patches to verify it. The date of the patch is not the date of
>   the modification, if such modification is done programmatically on
>   Hydra servers.

I think that they may be comply with this requirement already with how
they distribute the modified source via git but it might be that there
could be a different way of doing it.

> - the other matter has to be observed that the License itself was not
>   delivered with the substitutes (object or executable form) of the
>   packages I have tried, and I have already searched for License in some
>   of them, such as in aria2, wicd, pulseaudio...

I believe that the license is in the source and the source is being
provided from the same place (gnu.org) as the binary (which is also
hosted on gnu.org), but, it could be that doing this in a way that makes
it easier for downstream recipients to pass along binaries might be
sensible.



-- 
Joshua Gay
Licensing & Compliance Manager  <http://www.fsf.org/licensing>
Free Software Foundation        <https://donate.fsf.org>
GPG key ID: 8DA625BB            What's a GPG key ID?
                                See our Email Self-Defense Guide:
                                <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org>