GNU bug report logs - #52109
[PATCH] gnu: Add unrar-free.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>,  Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: kiasoc5 <kiasoc5 <at> disroot.org>, 52109 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Foo Chuan Wei <chuanwei.foo <at> hotmail.com>
Subject: [bug#52109] [PATCH] gnu: Add unrar-free.
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 21:49:42 +0100

Am Donnerstag, dem 12.01.2023 um 07:54 -0500 schrieb Leo Famulari:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023, at 01:22, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> > But as it stands right now, I see it as little more than a piece
> > of software that makes people go "but how do I get the _real_
> > unrar?",
> 
> This argument, whether or not it has merit on its own, has no
> precedent within Guix as a reason to exclude a free software program.
> 
> I'm sure most of us can name some Guix packages that we dislike
> because we see them in some unflattering or uncharitable way. But, we
> bite our tongues because Guix has a precedent of accepting freely
> licensed programs that are minimally functionally and not malware.
> Guix has had very liberal package acceptance criteria at least since
> I joined, if not since it began, and changing this precedent should
> require overwhelming consensus.
> 
> If there is a concrete objection (not conjecture or speculation) to
> this patch based on the criteria of the FSDG and precedents of Guix
> package acceptance, please share it. Otherwise, I think the patch
> should be accepted.
For what it's worth, Guix also has a precedent of including things that
go against its own criteria due to reviewer oversight, be it bundled
libraries, both as source and blobs, or actually non-free software.  In
my personal opinion, aiming to be a little more thorough doesn't hurt
that much :)

Previous Next

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