>Non-free software should be the issue, not Guix itself

Not the parent, but this approach from Guix maintainers is the reason why it's not an OS I would consider. I use free software almost exclusively, but I appreciate that nixos doesn't try to play the moral police and will let me easily run any non-free software I want. I don't like it, but sometimes using a non free tool is the easiest way to get the job done, and life is too short to get stuck on software idealism (at least for me).

You are free to use non-free software on Guix System, it's just not in the main channel or officially recommended. You'd likely figure it out fast enough if you wanted.

The reproducibility crisis in science has nothing to do with the supporting software itself not being reproducible.

Both are needed. Look what happened with Excel in genomics. Once you can control every point of the pipeline, you are set. That means a discrete set of versions, dependencies and being able to rebuild and fix every point of software if bugs show up.

> Not free software by default is NOT reproducible.

Changing a licence on some software doesn't change the compilation. The licence is completely orthogonal to whether software is reproducible or not.

How do I recompile binary blobs?

You don't. So the blob that is packaged and installed is identical to the one in the repository. Hence, it has no reproducibility issue.

Non-free does not mean compiled. Here's a non-free script which I grant you the right to view but not execute or copy:

    echo foobar

Reproducible, compiled and free are all orthogonal.