Thanks for creating the channel! As for the question of what has to go in #raku-debate, and what can still be discussed in #raku even if contentious: Ultimately it’ll probably have to be decided through a consensus by the community or steering council. My thinking behind

The purpose would not, of course, be to say: “Anything contentious must go in #raku-debate and has no place in #raku”.

is: It makes sense to require that the bulk of any contentious discussion happen in #raku-debate, but in my opinion what should still be allowed in #raku (as long as one doesn’t abuse this) includes:

• to begin any discussion in #raku (moving to #raku-debate when asked to),
• to mention the state of a #raku-debate discussion in the main channel from time to time,
• to ask people from #raku to look at an ongoing or logged discussion and/or to add their opinion.

Typo in the title? (2026.09 instead of 2026.02)

So at the core, moderation decisions could better match the usual moderation goal (Namely: not to suppress a topic, but to keep #raku usable for people focussing on programming).

Abstracting from this particular case, I imagine it could help to have an additional IRC channel, named e.g. #raku-debate. Something like this surely has been considered before, but I think the advantages are really significant.

The purpose would not, of course, be to say: “Anything contentious must go in #raku-debate and has no place in #raku”. It would be a last resort; #raku would continue to be the default place for discussions. But when someone does want to discuss something that others find (in principle or merely at the time) excessively bothersome for the general-purpose channel #raku, then one can say: “please don’t discuss this in this channel,” and still offer this IRC discussion a place inside the official realms of the Raku community.

It would make it easier on the person who is being told not to discuss their topic in #raku.

It would make it easier on those moderating #raku.

It would also make it easier for people who may have something useful to say on the topic, but decide against chiming in out of concern for others in #raku who are already exhausted by the discussion. Heck, I would bet that at times even simple clarification questions don’t get asked for such reasons; which would mean that certain misunderstandings may persist and cause damage when they could have been resolved…

Thank you!

Persönlich liebe ich ja Raku, auch weil alles mit Unicode da von Haus aus so funktioniert wie es soll:

$ echo 'ich👩🏻🛒💂🏻‍♀️iel' | raku -ne 'say .chars'
9

Aber danke für die gute Erklärung oben!

I think the EUPL has indeed outruled such redistributing-to-oneself by defining

‘Distribution’ or ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person.

(Besides, I could imagine that even without this definition, such redistributing-to-oneself would already constitute a violation because it would count as an act in bad faith.)

Keeping up copyleft is a neverending struggle against influence campaigns and lobbying operations telling us and telling public officials, “Don’t be so obsessed with copyleft like the ideologues at the FSF are; all those scenarios you’re hearing about up won’t occur anyway.” And then they try to privatize the X Window System. The second document that you linked to (this one) actually has this interesting sentence in the Disclaimer at its top: “The Matrix is not influenced by ideology (telling the good and the ugly, urging people to use or to avoid specific licenses).” It does sound like the authors have been under such an influence.

My theory would be that these lawyers, top professionals doubtless, were being tasked something like “By golly, we have 27 languages, 27 legal systems, and the French are already using their own favorite licence—you have to give us something we can work with”. And so interoperability, convertibility, became their top priority, to which they would indeed consciously or unconsciously sacrifice watertight copyleft.

That being said, the issue with how well the GPL and AGPL fit European jurisdictions must of course be resolved somehow.

Highly interesting. However:

So these are the parts of the EUPL 1.2 that are most relevant to copyleft:

5. Obligations of the Licensee

…

Copyleft clause: If the Licensee distributes or communicates copies of the Original Works or Derivative Works, this Distribution or Communication will be done under the terms of this Licence or of a later version of this Licence unless the Original Work is expressly distributed only under this version of the Licence — for example by communicating ‘EUPL v. 1.2 only’. The Licensee (becoming Licensor) cannot offer or impose any additional terms or conditions on the Work or Derivative Work that alter or restrict the terms of the Licence.

Compatibility clause: If the Licensee Distributes or Communicates Derivative Works or copies thereof based upon both the Work and another work licensed under a Compatible Licence, this Distribution or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence. For the sake of this clause, ‘Compatible Licence’ refers to the licences listed in the appendix attached to this Licence. Should the Licensee’s obligations under the Compatible Licence conflict with his/her obligations under this Licence, the obligations of the Compatible Licence shall prevail.

Having read this section multiple times, also in different languages, I preliminarily believe that the following still remains possible:

1. Let’s say that some person or entity “A” has released some code under the EUPL.

2. Some other person or entity “B” creates a derivative work and distributes it (including all of A’s code) under the LGPL. This is allowed per the first sentence of the EUPL’s Compatibility clause above: “this Distribution or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence”. Here B is a licensee of the EUPL-licenced work, and what the final part of the Compatibility clause (just like the text that you quoted) says is that B, being a licensee of a EUPL-licensed work, continues to be bound by all of the EUPL’s copyleft obligations. Fair enough.

3. Now some third person or entity “C” comes along, and takes just this re-distributed work, which is being distributed by B under the terms of just the LGPL. Here C has no obligations under the EUPL, because C is only dealing with code that is distributed by B under just the LGPL. That is, C is solely a licensee under the terms of the LGPL.

And thus the exploit would be: Corporation C pays some straw man company B to re-distribute A’s interesting EUPL code under the LGPL, so that corporation C can pick it up while only needing to comply with the weaker copyleft of the LGPL.

The Free Software Foundation writes the following about the EUPL 1.2 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL12):

This is a free software license. By itself, it has a copyleft comparable to the GPL’s, and incompatible with it. However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License and the Common Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft. Thus, developers can’t rely on this license to provide a strong copyleft.

The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2, because that is listed as one of the alternative licenses that users may convert to. It also, indirectly, allows relicensing to GPL version 3, because there is a way to relicense to the CeCILL v2, and the CeCILL v2 gives a way to relicense to any version of the GNU GPL.

To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece of code which you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find a suitable module already available that way, and add it to the program. Adding that code to the EUPL-covered program provides grounds to relicense it to the CeCILL v2. Then you need to write a piece of code which you can license under the GPLv3-or-later, or find a suitable module already available that way, and add it to the program. Adding that code to the CeCILL-covered program provides grounds to relicense it to GPLv3-or-later.

The fact that re-licensing from EUPL to GPL is so cumbersome (and therefor off-putting to independent developers), and that at the same time it allows for re-licensing to weaker copyleft (i.e. for derivative works to be more proprietary, so to speak), makes me not want to use it.

Danke für die Vorschläge!

Warum Dropshipping, das hat @[email protected] gut erklärt: Man muss nur das Angebot einmal aufsetzen und bewerben – an die Abwicklung der vielen einzelnen Bestellungen braucht selbst dann gar nicht mehr zu denken.

Das Einzige, worum man sich dann noch kümmern muss, ist die jährliche Abrechnung für die Einkommensteuererklärung (solange der Umsatz unter der Kleinunternehmer-Grenze von ~17.500€ bleibt). So eine Abrechnung muss ich für wegen einer anderen Sache (nichts mit Stickern) ohnehin machen, da lässt sich eine weitere mit relativ wenig Aufwand hinzufügen.

Ziel hier ist aber sowieso weniger Gewinnerzielung, sondern hauptsächlich Raku sichtbarer zu machen; die Margen werde ich ziemlich gering ansetzen.

My respect!

deleted by creator

Fittingly, just two days ago they did open up a Mastodon account — this one: https://hachyderm.io/@guix. I’d say be sure to boost their initial toot and possibly more.

From an email that just appeared on the devel list:

Hi,

As you will have seen GNU Guix is now on Mastodon - we have entered the social media age: https://hachyderm.io/@guix

The goal of being on Mastodon is it’s another communications method (like the blog an email lists) that we can tell people about GNU Guix, but also engage with people about Guix and related topics.

It would be great to have a few people who’d like to regularly post and engage. Anyone interested?

…

deleted by creator

I’ll also throw this in, “A Raku Manifesto” by Daniel Sockwell (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Especially Part 3 was really eye-opening for me with regard to the question of what kind of programming language is good for personal and libre software projects.

Cool :) I have most experience with openSUSE, so what I think I’ll do is dual-boot Guix and openSUSE on my laptop, perhaps with a shared home directory or at least shared data directories.

NixOS to Guix discussion thread :)

What distro do you prefer, Guix or something else?

Do you happen to be in the loop about qutebrowser? I’ve read good things about it (but from 2020).

Audrey Tang ist echt beeindruckend. Hatte damals für Perl 6 (das heute Raku heißt) die Enwicklung Compilers Pugs geleitet und die Entwicklung der Sprache damit deutlich vorangebracht. Siehe hier warum Raku großartig sein könnte.