Hi, Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> 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
