Hi,
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 at 17:31, Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am very hesitant about this splitting idea, at least until I see a
>> working proposition.
>
> Same here: experience with Guix-Science has shown that this is very
> tricky. :-)
I refrain myself to comment about how to deal with the growth ;-) and
instead let focus on:
Maybe now is the time to think about inclusion criteria that are
more stringent than just “anything that looks like free software”?
I will not repeat the comment I already did – checkout [0], below the
quote above. :-)
> My
> question is more what to do first about packages with vibe-coded
> software
>From my perspective, “vibe-coded” is one criteria that appears the Evil;
from Ludo’s perspective. However, someone else could find that “games”
does not fit free software because they unnecessarily burn resource for
distracting us from the true human relationship. Someone else could
find that “cryptomoney” as bitcoin does not fit free software because
[reference to lengthy threads on guix-devel]. Someone else could find
that the Linux kernel does not fit free software because they promote
Open Source “ideology”. Etc. Etc.
And as we have seen when discussing GCD 008, the “ethical”
considerations – what’s Evil – had been challenging to discuss. Why?
Because I think we need a first shared framework sketching what means
“Free Software” in addition to the 4 freedoms and then challenge one
item above to this framework.
Concretely, I proposed [1] to bootstrap “Free Software” by:
• Being benevolent
• Being autonomous
instead of the 4 freedoms (i.e., a compliant license). It’s the 2
packed values (principles) that emerges from “Why I Must Write GNU” [2]:
I consider that the Golden Rule requires that if I like a
program I must share it with other people who like it. Software
sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each
user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break
solidarity with other users in this way.
[…]
So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have
decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so
that I will be able to get along without any software that is
not free.
The 4 freedoms are derived from these 2 principles (values). “Why I
must Write GNU” appears to me the seed to clarify what means “Free
Software”. And then based on this framework, scrutinizing “vibe-coded”
leads [3] to it’s not “Free Software”.
Well, I’m not going to repeat [1]. :-) From my point of view, having
such shared understanding about what means “Free Software” in addition
to the 4 freedoms (i.e., a compliant license) would help to clarify how
to be more stringent than just “anything that looks like free software”.
Cheers,
simon
0: Re: Good vibes, bad vibes
Simon Tournier <[email protected]>
Tue, 27 Oct 2026 15:51:11 +0100
notmuch:id:[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-10
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
1: https://simon.tournier.info/posts/2024-11-01-visiting-future-gnu.html
2: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html
3: https://simon.tournier.info/posts/2026-05-29-guix-genai-letter.html
