Message ID | f9YNSdmHSIAVHWwDRwnh8QVeNjUG4M6YMJMntulZ3s8cYPVCBHrVIirwkuGxpYIduWVNAyi13dFVlqUKs7_QXPDBvbDe_JNNEC_SoNBTprk=@protonmail.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Thanks a lot for the patches! On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 14:33 +0000, raid5atemyhomework via Guix-patches via wrote: > Personally I'm not particularly motivated to push this anymore. I > have a frankenstein's `configuration.scm` that gets me the bits of > ZFS functionality that I absolutely need, with the rest something I'm > just living without, and while it would be *nice* to have *some* out- > of-the-box support for ZFS (or at least make it easy to get a box to > get support for ZFS out of), I personally don't need it at this > point. I understand your frustration but also understand that the people who are able to review your patches can't make themselves available in the way you desire, there's lots of pending patches to GNU Guix and as much as ZFS support is valuable, there's also lots of other things that are valuable and are in the backlog. > Patch 1/3 corresponds to the original Patch 1/4. Patch 2/3 has no > corresponding patch in the original patch set, but is the same patch > as https://issues.guix.gnu.org/47134 which nobody is looking at, as > usual. Patch 3/3 corresponds to the original Patch 4/4. Please do not blame or shame us for not looking at patches, it's not very nice, we do our best, at all times. We are overworked and the people who are knowledgeable about GNU Guix and Scheme particularily so. I don't feel like I am knowledgeable about Scheme and GNU Guix enough to review your patches, sorry for that. Léo
> On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 14:33 +0000, raid5atemyhomework via Guix-patches > via wrote: > > > Personally I'm not particularly motivated to push this anymore. I > > have a frankenstein's `configuration.scm` that gets me the bits of > > ZFS functionality that I absolutely need, with the rest something I'm > > just living without, and while it would be nice to have some out- > > of-the-box support for ZFS (or at least make it easy to get a box to > > get support for ZFS out of), I personally don't need it at this > > point. > > I understand your frustration but also understand that the people who > are able to review your patches can't make themselves available in the > way you desire, there's lots of pending patches to GNU Guix and as much > as ZFS support is valuable, there's also lots of other things that are > valuable and are in the backlog. > > > Patch 1/3 corresponds to the original Patch 1/4. Patch 2/3 has no > > corresponding patch in the original patch set, but is the same patch > > as https://issues.guix.gnu.org/47134 which nobody is looking at, as > > usual. Patch 3/3 corresponds to the original Patch 4/4. > > Please do not blame or shame us for not looking at patches, it's not > very nice, we do our best, at all times. We are overworked and the > people who are knowledgeable about GNU Guix and Scheme particularily > so. I don't feel like I am knowledgeable about Scheme and GNU Guix > enough to review your patches, sorry for that. Okay. Thanks raid5atemyhomework
Can I get any particular feedback here at this point, from anyone at all?
Maxime writes, > The GPL violation is very unfortunate. It would have been nice to > have some ZFS support in Guix. There is no GPL violation. Gaslighting in an attempt to sabotage the adoption of high-quality free software is somewhat poor form and not at all useful. To be clear, the one singular thing that would be a GPL violation would be Guix building Linux with ZFS built in and then distributing that binary. Users can build ZFS into their kernels and use them and that's fine as long as they don't distribute them. Guix can script this to make it easy for users to build ZFS into their kernels and that would not be a violation. The only possible violation is distribution of a binary Linux kernel with ZFS compiled into it. Hope that helps.
Mason Loring Bliss schreef op do 02-09-2021 om 17:24 [-0400]: > Maxime writes, > > > The GPL violation is very unfortunate. It would have been nice to > > have some ZFS support in Guix. > > There is no GPL violation. Gaslighting in an attempt to sabotage the > adoption of high-quality free software is somewhat poor form and not at all > useful. Indeed, gaslighing is poor form and not at all useful. But why are you suggesting I'm gaslightling here? Did you just read these last two sentences of the e-mail? If you read all of it, you'd have seen my explanation of why I believe there's a GPL violation, and two relevant links to articles by SFLC and FSF. Also see IRC logs: https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-09-02.log https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-09-03.log While ultimately it's a matter for the courts to decide on, I believe I've reasonable grounds to believe it's a GPL violation and explained why, so I don't see any gaslightling here. And I'm not ‘sabotaging’ anything. In fact, I'm _helping_ adoption of ZFS, by reviewing the patch and giving some suggestions. There is just the practical problem of the in-my-eyes probable GPL violation (your opinion on whether it's a GPL violation might vary). > To be clear, the one singular thing that would be a GPL violation would be > Guix building Linux with ZFS built in and then distributing that binary. > Users can build ZFS into their kernels and use them and that's fine as long > as they don't distribute them. Guix can script this to make it easy for > users to build ZFS into their kernels and that would not be a violation. > The only possible violation is distribution of a binary Linux kernel with > ZFS compiled into it. See the previous mail and the IRC logs for why I find this reasoning rather flimsy. > Hope that helps. No, your libel about ‘Maxime is gaslighting’ doesn't help. And your paragraph about why you think there's no GPL violation here is nothing I haven't read before. I probably won't be reading and replying to your mails anymore. Bye, Maxime
Hi Mason, On Thu, 02 Sep 2021 at 17:24, Mason Loring Bliss <mason@blisses.org> wrote: > Gaslighting in an attempt to sabotage the > adoption of high-quality free software is somewhat poor form and not at all > useful. Using such language (emphasized by the subject), you are not creating a positive environment. Please be respectful when differing viewpoints and experiences. And please assume good faith avoiding to jump in negative opinionated conclusions. Thanks, simon
Happy birthday 45692!
BUMP
close 45692 quit No point: nobody will review or merge anyway.