[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: enable MELPA & Marmalade by defaul [was: mykie.el]

From: Eric Brown
Subject: Re: enable MELPA & Marmalade by defaul [was: mykie.el]
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:08:20 -0600
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix)

Hi Drew,

Drew Adams <address@hidden> writes:

>> >> GNU ELPA (enabled by default with Emacs, unlike MELPA or
>> >> Marmalade).
>> >
>> > Apropos: Why shouldn't GNU Emacs enable all three by default?
>> >
>> > That would help GNU Emacs users more, I think.
>> One easy answer is that MELPA and Marmalade are non under the
>> control of the Emacs prooject.
> So?  GNU Emacs is not responsible for whatever it might be that
> those repos have or do.  And I think we (should) know by now
> that most, if not all, of what they do can be helpful for Emacs
> users.

I think this falls into the category of "should a GNU project recommend
repositories that contain non-free software?"

(vide, inter alia, "Real Men Do Not Attack Straw Men")

RMS and his defense of the FSF position (and composure in the face of
very shabby treatment) are remarkable.

> Should `eww' give users access, by default, only to web sites
> that GNU Emacs Dev (TM) has vetted ("tested", "released"...)?
> Who will do all the vetting?

If Emacs (or any GNU/FSF program) actively prevented the installation of
software, or surfing to a site of the users' choice, that would be

It is another matter entirely to _recommend_ the software sites, because
the FSF believes that this constitutes some form of complicity in
leading someone astray. (Whether the end-user believes it is

> Think users, not lawyers.  This is not GNanny, or at least it
> did not used to be.

It is trivial for a user to enable these repositories.

What is not trivial is endeavoring to maintain a libre software
installation, but having non-free repositories enabled.  It is truly
shocking that proprietary "feature-enhancing" extensions can get
installed onto a system by package managers, though the selected
software package (e.g. Chromium) was in fact libre.

>From another perspective, it makes it difficult to develop software
systems for commercial purposes, because can't be sure that my company
can use for any purpose or redistribute the codes.  In principle, a repo
author may rise like a submarine, when he discovers that he could strike
it rich because of (unintended) license violations.  IANAL, but I
believe that unless otherwise stated, all rights are reserved.

Best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]