[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:53:08 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/2.0 (3d08634) (2020-11-07)

* Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> [2021-01-06 19:24]:
> > 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!

Try using it yourself. Since I gave you my last example, I did not get
impression that you improved your perception. This is because you did
not try it. My conclusion is that it does not say for every piece of
software that it is non-free. It is probably only for those software
from Debian, that it gives the name of repository in the fourth column
and Debian keeps name of repository "non-free". Repology.org server
provides references to software packages from plethora of
repositories. Other repositories may not name the repository
"non-free", so you may not easily distinguish about that. And, I also
gave example that package information may not show at all which
license is used by specific package. Sometimes it may show, sometimes

Take for example the proprietary black list by the fully free Parabola
GNU/Linux distribution:

and then use repology.el package to search for those packages.

Then try searching for a popular non-free browser such as "Opera"

You may find an entry like this:

SlackBuilds          network/opera-developer 74.0.3890.0  network

where it gives following information:

repo            slackbuilds
srcname         network/opera-developer
visiblename     network/opera-developer
version         74.0.3890.0
maintainers     edps.mundognu@gmail.com
www             https://www.opera.com/
categories      network
status          ignored
origversion     -

And in such information there is hyperlink on how to download non-free

Nothing says if software is free or not.

This is becuse SlackBuilds unethical repository probably does not
provide license information on software they package, including
proprietary software.

If however, user clocks on the entry like this:

nixpkgs unstable     opera                68.0.3618.63 -

then one can get some information as the nixpkgs unethical repository,
does provide information that they are distributing proprietary
software, they mention it as "Unfree":

repo            nix_unstable
name            opera
visiblename     opera
version         68.0.3618.63
maintainers     fallback-mnt-nix@repology
licenses        Unfree
www             https://www.opera.com/
summary         Web browser
status          outdated
origversion     -

Other unethical repository like Solus would spit out result by
repology.el like this:

repo            solus
srcname         opera-stable
binname         opera-stable
visiblename     opera-stable
version         73.0.3856.329
maintainers     harveydevel@gmail.com
licenses        Distributable
www             https://www.opera.com/
summary         The Opera browser brings you more speed, more discoveries and 
more safety on the web - all for free
categories      network.web.browser
status          newest
origversion     -

"Distributable" is vague and does not say really what license it is,
but I do ensure you that Opera is proprietary software.

And so on, and so on.

By putting repology.el into GNU ELPA, GNU software like Emacs will
become a good reference to unethical software repositories promoting
among proprietary software.

> > 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.

Who I am, or how I am is not subject of this. I do need to conform to
yours or anybody's standards or classes of society. 

Subject is the Emacs package repology.el and if inclusion into GN ELPA
is aligned with GNU purposes. I am free software user and cannot
recommend any proprietary software to any party, so I do not recommend
that GNU Emacs in official GNU repository becomes a platform to
promote proprietary software packages. And I can hardly understand why
you promote such view point. People reading this mailing list shall
know that GNU Emacs is about free software.

Attempt to promote proprietary software by including repology.el in
GNU ELPA is confusing free software users reading this mailing list.

So if you wish to promote proprietary software just find some other
platform, but not GNU.org. You could for example open up your website
and open up your own ELPA repository and include repology.el and
provide access to references on proprietary software. It would be less
typing then what we discuss here.

I do think that attempt to include the repology.el is the attempt to
make better advertising for the unethical website repology.org


reply via email to

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