[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [GNU-linux-libre] programming language package

From: IngeGNUe
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [GNU-linux-libre] programming language package manager
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 20:38:37 -0400

On 04/04/16 20:01, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote:
>> I'm confused about why this is necessary. Why not check the license of a
>> package before installing it? A programmer should be able to do this.
> Since  we have  distros
>  is endorsed by the FSF, mere warning is not enough.
> One of the criteria for keeping the endorsed status is that
> FSF-endorsed distros:
> "...must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for
> practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should have no
> repositories
> for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of
> particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution refer to
> third-party repositories
> that are not committed to only including free software; even if they
> only have free software today, that may not be true tomorrow. Programs
> in the system
> should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on."
> have fun and be free
> ali miracle
> 2016-04-04 14:47 جرينتش-07:00, IngeGNUe <>:
>> On 04/03/16 18:37, Felipe Sanches wrote:
>>> I've been concerned for a while about this as well.
>>> Any idea if anyone has ever tried dealing with this problem already?
>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ali Abdul Ghani <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Most of us use Package manager to install Programs
>>>> in fully free gnu/linux distributions all the repositorys is free
>>>> software
>>>> But wait
>>>> this seme not tru
>>>> A lot of programming languages have own Package Manager
>>>> Examples of those packages managers: npm (CSS/JavaScript), Bower
>>>> (Web), pip (Python), Ruby Gems (Ruby),
>>>> CPAN (Perl), Cargo (Rust), ...
>>>> These packages rely on special Repositorys
>>>> Nearly all of those Repositorys accept non-free licenses. At least,
>>>> most of those Repositorys show the license of the program, but it
>>>> doesn't
>>>> even warn you when installing a non-free package.
>>>> and The big problem is python and Perl is part from
>>>> fully free gnu/linux distributions
>>>> I think this mene the distributions is not fully free gnu/linux
>>>> distributions
>>>> There are 2 solutions came in my head
>>>> 1- remove this Package Manager from this programming languages from
>>>> free gnu/linux distributions
>>>> in fact If we're removing those package managers, it's going to make
>>>> installing some software much harder.
>>>> 2. Create a separate repository. In this case, we hnede  manpower to
>>>> mirror all the free packages and remove only the non-free ones, else
>>>> we will
>>>> land in a situation similar to 1. we will also need a pretty Web
>>>> interface in order to attract users.
>>>> have fun and be free
>>>> ali miracle
>>>> --
>>>> Emacs is the ground. We run around and act silly on top of it, and
>>>> when we die, may our remnants grace its ongoing incrementation.
>> I'm confused about why this is necessary. Why not check the license of a
>> package before installing it? A programmer should be able to do this.
>> Tell me if I am wrong?
>> If you feel like that's a good use of your time, go for it...
Hello Ali,

What I mean by that is not even a warning. A programmer is sophisticated
enough of a user to look at the license of a package if she cares enough
about the issue. Therefore, i find it dubious what value it adds to
bother with this.

Besides that, there should be a limit to what distros are responsible
for; I believe that the responsibility of a distro is to distribute
libre packages; if those libre packages then download non-libre packages
distributed by somebody else, then the distro should not be responsible
for that. I think that's the only sane option because otherwise y'all
gettin way too meta.


reply via email to

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