Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC?

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:22:04 + raid5atemyhomework wrote: > Hello Denis, Hi, > > While thinking about this very weird case of combining GPL and CDDL > > code together, I wonder if the fact that we can't redistribute > > binaries still makes it free software. > > AS I understood from early wr

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC?

Hello Denis, > While thinking about this very weird case of combining GPL and CDDL > code together, I wonder if the fact that we can't redistribute binaries > still makes it free software. AS I understood from early writings of GNU --- "Freedom" here is the freedom to modify how *the hardware y

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC?

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:34:55 -0800 Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2021-11-26, Denis Carikli wrote: > > Or disable zfs as a dependency of Gnome? > > This specific point is a bit dated; the issue was both introduced and > shortly after reverted in early July: > > 61ccd756e5ff73b2f8dc3449df537f1c

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC?

On 2021-11-26, Denis Carikli wrote: > Or disable zfs as a dependency of Gnome? This specific point is a bit dated; the issue was both introduced and shortly after reverted in early July: 61ccd756e5ff73b2f8dc3449df537f1c5adb5872 gnu: libvirt: Support ZFS. 3fb6c96106df85ba47f8fea34b224071bd75a1

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC?

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:28:04 +0100 Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > But I wonder if a license that forbid binary redistribution would > still be considered free or not. When we'll have more infos on if that is free or if we consider it as free until proven otherwise, we still have two remaining iss

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC?

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:02:11 -0800 Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2021-11-24, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:03:18 +0100 > > "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:45:19AM +0100, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli > >> wrote: > > https://sfconservan

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

Hi Florian, On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 15:40, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" wrote: >>> I don't know if that convinces maintainers to change decisions. >> >> This decision is consistent with the analysis [1] done by Software >> Conservancy Freedom, at least. > > I did not speak about one decision. A

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC?

On 2021-11-24, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:03:18 +0100 > "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:45:19AM +0100, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli >> wrote: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ > That article states that: >> Pure di

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 07:10:48PM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote: > Maybe there is consensus that adding ZFS is a legal risk. I assume we are talking about the risk of litigation from Oracle (ZFS owner), right? Canonical decided in 2016 that the risk was low enough to take a chance and

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:32:56PM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote: > Sorry I misunderstood. I think your claim is that the ZFS decisions > listed by Ludo i.e. to disallow binary substitutes but to allow > patches for a ZFS file-system object (once reviewed) are inconsistent. > Right? > >

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:03:18 +0100 "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:45:19AM +0100, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli > wrote: > > If that's the case then it would also be legal to redistribute > > binaries too as long as they are dynamically linked as the linking > > happens

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

Hi Florian, On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 13:32, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" wrote: > I don't know if that convinces maintainers to change decisions. This decision is consistent with the analysis [1] done by Software Conservancy Freedom, at least. I have not read a clear position by the FSF. They

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:03:29PM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:45:19AM +0100, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > > If that's the case then it would also be legal to redistribute binaries > > too as long as they are dynamically linked as the linking happens at

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:45:19AM +0100, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > If that's the case then it would also be legal to redistribute binaries > too as long as they are dynamically linked as the linking happens at > runtime. The FSF is unable to have such a position. It seems unrelated to the

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

Hi Denis, On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 00:51, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > If I understood correctly Florian, the argument here is that it is safe > to redistribute source code under a GPL incompatible license that links > to GPL code because it's in source form? Maybe you could be interested by t

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 00:50:04 +0100 Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 18:29:22 +0100 > Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > > When consensus cannot be met, maintainers have the last say. > > > > But again, my understanding is that there’s no new decision to be > > made here. >

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

Hi, On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 18:29:22 +0100 Ludovic Courtès wrote: > When consensus cannot be met, maintainers have the last say. > > But again, my understanding is that there’s no new decision to be made > here. If I understood correctly Florian, the argument here is that it is safe to redistribute

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

Hi, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" skribis: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 11:54:15AM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote: >> raid5atemyhomework wrote patches to add ZFS to Guix >> . I put them in CC. That there is >> no decision on ZFS and their patches is bad.

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:10:48 +0100 "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" wrote: > I don’t actually care about ZFS myself, but there should be a decision > because I think current badly supported ZFS makes people here unhappy. For people that really want the ZFS kernel module, would using an extra channel f

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 11:54:15AM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote: > raid5atemyhomework wrote patches to add ZFS to Guix > . I put them in CC. That there is > no decision on ZFS and their patches is bad. Maybe their patches > would be for the RFC model

Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 11:54:15 +0100 "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" wrote: > Hello Denis. Thank you for your write-up. Hi, > raid5atemyhomework wrote patches to add ZFS to Guix > . I put them in CC. That there is > no decision on ZFS and their patches is bad. M

ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

Hello Denis. Thank you for your write-up. raid5atemyhomework wrote patches to add ZFS to Guix . I put them in CC. That there is no decision on ZFS and their patches is bad. Maybe their patches would be for the RFC model to decide? As for Denis’ arguments