[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: persistent reproducibility ?

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: persistent reproducibility ?
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:45:01 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)


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

In effect it requires the 4 freedoms:

Now, it is true that there’s software out there with “accessible source”
that is neither free software nor open source, especially on
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).
> 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!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]