[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repol

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:27:02 +0200

> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 20:56:21 +0300
> From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
> Cc: ulm@gentoo.org, rms@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru, ams@gnu.org,
>   arthur.miller@live.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> * Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-01-25 18:14]:
> > > Let us say enriched mode in Emacs, if it would not be modifiable by
> > > programmers who fork Emacs, I am not sure if Emacs would be free
> > > software.
> > 
> > Enriched mode doesn't have or use a schema, so this example is
> > inapplicable.
> But it has its format. Right?

Its format is determined by the code, not by a DTD.  And that format
is specific to Enriched mode alone, it's its private format that is
not shared with any other application.

> How about programmer comes and says, now I want to call it Enriched
> mode, but internally it has to look like this:
> FORMAT: Enriched
> Width: 70
> Hello there</DONE>

How is this relevant to the issue we are discussing?

> Exactly, I was thinking we were chatting about that. Of course that by
> changing schema one may get incompatible formats. And that shall be
> software freedom. We have to allow programmers to make any formats and
> build upon previous formats.
> Incompatibility or not, that is not major point.

It is exactly the major point.  If you want to create a new schema,
you can.

> When StarOffice was made first time its format was incompatible to
> many other formats.

We are not talking about format of office files, we are talking about
definitions of data types shared by gazillions of files used for very
different purposes.  It's a completely different use case.

reply via email to

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