GNU bug report logs - #46385
User awareness of Anti-Features

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 46385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: soheil <at> disroot.org, Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>,
 46385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46385: User awareness of Anti-Features
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 17:12:42 -0400

Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>> * ads (I don't think any application in Guix has these?)
>> * tracking (should be patched out if possible)
>> * non-free-network-services
>> * non-free-dependencies (probably not allowed in upstream Guix, but maybe in a channel)
>>
>> The code behind ‘guix show’ and ‘guix search’ would need to
>> be adjusted to display anti-features, and the ‘guix install’ code
>> should warn if someone installs a package with anti-features.
>
> I’m sympathetic with the idea of raising awareness of those
> anti-features.  However, I don’t see a clear way we could “define” each
> possible anti-feature; some are definitely ill-defined (for instance, a
> service is neither “free” nor “non-free” in the same sense as software
> can be free or non-free.)  It’s also not entirely clear to me how the UI
> could make good use of it.

I agree.  It's not well defined, and to me following the FSDG seems an
already good warranty that you're getting only free software from a
project dedicated to fixing any freedom issues that may be discovered.

> That said, there are anti-features that we have always patched out in
> the past, such as tracking/“phoning home” and auto-upgrades.  Perhaps we
> could formalize that in our packaging guidelines?

It'd be good to have this documented, indeed.

Thanks,

Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.