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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Dale Mellor <guix-devel-0brg6a <at> rdmp.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>, Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>, 71697 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 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: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 16:44:26 -0400

Hi Dale,

Dale Mellor <guix-devel-0brg6a <at> rdmp.org> writes:

> 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.

OK. From my understanding, the code is not transferred; only an archival
request to the project URL is submitted to SHW, and its up to SHW to
attempt to retrieve it (which would fail if the URL is private/protected
by some means).

Perhaps we could have a dummy 'private' or 'non-free' license added to
(guix licenses), that the 'check-archival' procedure would check to skip
the archival request?  This would need to be documented (mentioning it's
not for use for packages carried in the Guix collection, but for end
users working on a software not meant to be distributed).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

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