GNU bug report logs - #71697
[PATCH] guix: lint: Honor 'no-archival?' package property.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Dale Mellor <guix-devel-0brg6a <at> rdmp.org>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>,  71697 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe <at> gnu.org>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>, Florian Pelz <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de>, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>, Christopher Baines <guix <at> cbaines.net>, Matthew Trzcinski <matt <at> excalamus.com>
Subject: [bug#71697] [PATCH v3 2/2] scripts: lint: Honor package property to exclude checkers.
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 15:48:15 +0100

On Fri, 2024-06-28 at 23:12 -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> 
> While I dislike the attitude/approach used, I think the essence of the
> complaint was that Guix, via SHW, was somehow facilitating the
> scavenging of free software sources to train large language models
> (LLM), with the opinion that these models do not respect the licenses of
> the sources ingested for their produced output (the work is considered
> new work, not a derived work, or perhaps it's still legally a gray area,
> I don't know).  In this perspective, the original poster was seeking to
> have the free software more protected against what they see as a loop
> hole in the LLM business, as explained above.

  Original, original poster here (I'm feeling pretty awkward right now TBH, like
a bad shit-stirrer).  The point is that I use GUIX to support my own, private
projects.  It is nothing to do with licensing, I'm the only one who has ever
seen the code.  In this context it is unacceptable that GUIX should give it away
to anyone.

Dale

Previous Next

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