[Top][All Lists]

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

Sv: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

From: arthur miller
Subject: Sv: [ELPA] New package: repology.el
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 06:13:07 +0000

Yes please. That is one part of the text I said in one mail I have problems with. I think it leads into dogmatism of kind we are experiencing here.

Från: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Skickat: den 9 januari 2021 09:39
Till: rms@gnu.org <rms@gnu.org>
Kopia: emacs-tangents@gnu.org <emacs-tangents@gnu.org>; bugs@gnu.support <bugs@gnu.support>; ulm@gentoo.org <ulm@gentoo.org>; ams@gnu.org <ams@gnu.org>; arthur.miller@live.com <arthur.miller@live.com>; dgutov@yandex.ru <dgutov@yandex.ru>
Ämne: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el
> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 01:35:54 -0500
> Cc: emacs-tangents@gnu.org, bugs@gnu.support, ulm@gentoo.org, ams@gnu.org,
>  arthur.miller@live.com, dgutov@yandex.ru
>   > Just saying that a package exists and showing where its repository is
>   > etc. is nowhere near promotion, it's simply information.
> Please see the node References in the GNU Coding Standards for an
> explanation of why informing people that an obscure package exists is
> a form of promoting it.

As I explained elsewhere, I think this part of GSoC is a mistake and
should be fixed.  It goes too far in its desire to avoid promoting
non-free software, and that extremism in this case harms our own
cause.  The wording should be more balanced, or we should have some
qualifications in the text to the effect that neutral information
about software packages is not promotion.

reply via email to

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