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

[Jean Louis]

* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-01-25 22:27]:
> > 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.

I was assuming it is determined by code. The specification need not be
anywhere written in easy manner such as some schema. But it is written
in the code and users are free to modify it. So when speaking of
freedom users are free to modify the format of that document. I hope
so.

Freedom gives user opportunity not to make it private format. That is
how new software comes into existence. If there is no freedom to
modify and distribute and build upon it then programmers will most
probably be reluctant to create new works.

> > 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
> > 
> > <PUT-MIDDLE>
> > 
> > Hello there</DONE>
> 
> How is this relevant to the issue we are discussing?

Maybe we shall first agree what we are discussing?

I am talking about free software and freedom and if non-free program
dependent data such as schemas should or should not be distributed
with the Org package.

What is the issue that we discuss according to you?

> > 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.

But you cannot modify the file that came along with free software. Of
course we can create new schemas and new programs from scratch. But if
we cannot modify that data coming along with free software such as Org
package then Org package as software package is not fully free
package.

Maybe those functions that depend on non-free data shall be taken out
of the Org mode and be distributed separately.

It also brings up question if LibreOffice is really Libre if it
depends on such non-free schema.

> > 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.

Your reference of the text I wrote is out of the intended context. You
said it was useless to change schema and I have pointed out back to
same LibreOffice/OpenOffice/StarOffice that it actually improved
itself in few decades exactly because somebody was allowed to change
the formats. Even if it maybe was not fully free, at least somebody
was improving upon it. So the option to improve the format of a
document is beneficial and rather useful even if it would break or
change some compatibilities from past.

My point was that when people are given freedom they are allowed to
create new software and build upon the existing one.

When bundling non-free schema with Org, do we give that freedom to
receiver or not?

If we do not give the freedom to user receiving the Org package then
maybe such schema shall be removed from the package and functions
depending on such non-free schema removed.

Jean