Re: GnuTLS for W32

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Riley writes:

 > It was quite clear in the context what was meant by "emacs component" :
 > a component which contributes to a working and complete emacs
 > installation.

In context, I don't disagree with that definition.  I merely deny that
GnuTLS is needed for a complete Emacs distribution in that sense from
the point of view of the GNU Emacs project.  I believe that Juanma and
Eli would agree with me that those two points are the main ones,
though we respectfully disagree with each other on many other grounds.

 > I dont want to bicker and be petty but felt Ted was getting a bit
 > of a hard time for merely wanting to make things better for the end
 > user and, more importantly, the new adopter.

But this is not petty, it's fundamental!  Proponents who argue that
distribution of GnuTLS binaries is needed for Windows users are
ignoring a very important distinction: users (new adopters) of the GNU
System (and at lower priority, free OSes in general) vs. users of
non-free OSes and OSes whose attractiveness is based on non-free
software.  Supporting the former is the policy of GNU Emacs;
supporting the latter is not (though of course individual developers
are free to contribute to such support if they like).

I'm not sure that the above even applies to Ted, though.  AIUI, you
misread Ted's main argument, which is that an automatic notification
service for security updates (not necessarily involving distribution
of GnuTLS binaries for Windows users, though it *could* eventually do
so) would be beneficial for (almost) all Emacs users and therefore the
project.