[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 21:26:37 +0200

> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:53:08 +0300
> From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
> Cc: ulm@gentoo.org, ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org,
>  Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> "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.

Showing information about a package and a link to download it is a far
cry from "promoting" it.

Suppose I want to download a potentially non-free package to study its
code, or even just to understand with what kind of license it is
distributed (since you say the site itself doesn't tell) -- is this
"verboten" as well in Jean Louis's interpretation of what a Free
Software follower should and shouldn't do?

IOW, since when providing _information_ about something means we
endorse it?  Are we allowed to discuss "the bad guys", or should we
pretend they don't exist, for the fear that if we do mention them,
that could be interpreted as "promoting" them and their views?

If you think for a while, you will realize that this is the kind of
slippery slope that leads to the company of the bastards that accused
Richard in justifying obnoxious and criminal behavior.  "You are
either with us or against us."

reply via email to

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