Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

[Arthur Miller]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> * Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> [2021-01-06 18:00]:
>> As I see, it says "non-free", so what is the problem?
>
> Maybe you should review the fact that Debian does designate their
> non-free repository but that repology.el package will show all other
> repositories with non-free software, not being designated as non-free
> by any manner. So your perception does not come from practical and
> personal use of that software, rather from my example, that was not
> exhaustive.
No. I don't use repology myself it is true. But if that is the case, then
repology.el can fix it in it's gui? No?

>> I think it is rather informative to see if a piece of software is free
>> or not free, that way I can at least avoid non-free ones.
>
> As from example above, it does not says nothing about the license at
> all and thus does not serve to you as user to "recognize if software
> is free or not-free". That is why you should make better your personal
> research.
If it says non-free than it is quite clear for anyone with a bit of
intelligence in their head that it is, well: NON-FREE!

>> Are we now dogmatically religious where non-free software is forbidden
>> to even be mentioned as non-free? That smells to me as a slippery slope
>> into dogmatism and absolutism.
>
> GNU.org website does not offer directories of various software where
> plethora of non-free software package descriptions can be found,
> researched, and inspected.
And? I don't like haggis; does it mean you should not like it?

> It is matter of freedom and liberty and
> teaching people free software and not religion.
I didn't said that GNU teaches people about religion. I said you are
religious dogmatic about software.

>> Is there free-speach if people are not allowed to speak freely about
>> some subject(s) like mentioning non-free software?
>
> That is absolutely not subject of repology.el package. It should be
> clear that everybody is free to speak about anything. It is not
> subject of this discussion. GNU is project about free software. It
> should not offer access to users to search, verify, find references to
> non-free software.
So dogmatic. Why not? It may be useful for people to find references to
non-free software so they are not misstankely using them. Isn't it? You
know, a black list; sort of.

> Just think little about that, bakery is about baking bread, it should
> not (not normally) offer soaps on the bread shelves. Normally it will
> also not offer milk on the same shelves.
Unless owner decides to sell soaps and milk too. For the most part, it
is just a practical choice by hardware used, storage space, demand
etc. In software world, there are less practical limitations than in
physical world.

> GNU.org is about free software, it is not about giving references to
> non-free software. Yet many non-free software are mentioned on GNU.org
> website and references are given to free software with similar
> functionality.
>
> If a package like repology.el would say this software ABC is non-free
> software, which you may replace by using this XYZ free software, that
> would be useful. If it only offers queries and results from a software
> database without distinction or without supporting GNU purposes, then
> it should not be in GNU ELPA.
You have so little faith in other human beings to think with their own
heads. However I don't think everyone is happy with decisions being made
for them. Some people prefer liberty to decide for themselves, otherwise
they might feel oppressed.

Freedom and liberty is letting people decide for themselves.