[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

From: Arthur Miller
Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 21:36:00 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> * 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
> not.
> Take for example the proprietary black list by the fully free Parabola
> GNU/Linux distribution:
> https://git.parabola.nu/blacklist.git/plain/blacklist.txt
> 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
> edps.mundognu@gmail.com
> 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
> downloads       
> https://download1.operacdn.com/pub/opera-developer/74.0.3890.0/linux/opera-developer_74.0.3890.0_amd64.deb
> www             https://www.opera.com/
> categories      network
> status          ignored
> origversion     -
> And in such information there is hyperlink on how to download non-free
> software.
> 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 -
> fallback-mnt-nix@repology
> 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. 
Ok. Fair enough; as long as you don't demand other people to live up to
your standards. I am affraid by stigmatizing people for running some
software you are actually indirectly demanding them to live up to your
standards. (btw - I think you ment "I do not need ..." :-))

> 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.
Since you like dictionaries a lot, maybe you should look up word
"information" and word "promotion" in some. They are two different

I am not promoting non-free software, but I am very pragmatic person. As
a curiosa, about me, I even went in a political party to promote
actually free software; because I thought we could save A LOTS of
taxpayers money in the long run, and could make the world a better place
if we invested in free software isntead of sending money out of the
contrey to Microsoft or Apple or other big tech Co:s.

However dogmaticism and stigmaticism has never proven to be useful in
the long run. On contrary it is unproductive and potentially harmful. It
holds for every aspect of human life.

So is neither ultra-radicalism, it has tendency to alienate people.

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

As a curiosa, I wonder what do you think, how much of medical software
that powers life-holding machines in hospitals is *Free*? Should we
erase all those chips and hardrives? What do you think about *that*
unethical software? Do we have alternative? I really wish nobody ever
gets into a respiratory machine, but those that end up there are
probably thankful for whatever software runs it. Are those implicit
users of "unethical softare" suddenly "unethical people" because they
have no choice?

Is it unethical to not jump in a lake and save a drowbing persons life
if you can't swim?

Pesonally, I wish we had only free software in this world; but until we
have, I am affraid a people in that circumstance are thankful to have
whatever there is.

And yes, I agree repology could list the license along their tags and
include license category to search/filter for, at least in their
"Advanced ..." dialogue. Now when I see it I wonder even for whom is it
useful, on first sight it does not even seem very useful, I don't really

reply via email to

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