[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Re: [Savannah-register-public] project app

From: Yavor Doganov
Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Re: [Savannah-register-public] project approval
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:36:55 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (Goj┼Ź) APEL/10.7 Emacs/23.2 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

Alex Fernandez wrote:
> Improving Emacs on Windows may look like improving Windows, when seen
> by a critical eye; but in the end it is more about improving Emacs
> itself.

There is little reason to improve Emacs if that improvement is not
going to take us closer where we want to go.  The GNU project is not
about technical achievements (although they often happen naturally
along the way, as a side effect).

There is a very clear policy within the GNU project that such
"improvements" are against the ultimate goal, which is and has always
been liberating all software users.  Accepting a feature that makes a
particular package more attractive when run on a nonfree system is
definitely an action that undermines the project's goal, and it has
been stressed out numerous times in the past, particularly for Emacs.

It's a separate question whether such a project would be acceptable
for Savannah.  It's one thing for the maintainers of the project to
(rightfully, IMO) reject such feature and another thing to be hosted
somewhere, as a distinct project.  But GNU Savannah is not "somewhere".

> I would think that writing an extension to free software (even if it
> only runs on proprietary platforms) should always be allowed on
> Savannah, and perhaps it should be stated clearly in the hosting
> requirements.

That would be a radical tackle, and personally I'd be very
disappointed (to put it mildly) if this new stance is adopted.

reply via email to

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