Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

[Jean Louis]

Eli, I am managing websites since 1995. Placing references for software on 
websites, or newspapers, or in emails, or in directories, catalogue, anywhere, 
including in GNU ELPA , be it a link or not, Just text, It Is promotion of 
those websites, software, or opinions.

If we declare in such references that e.g. Skype is proprietary and abusive 
software then it is anti promotion, and we then rather promote free software 
like Jami as replacement.

Repology.el package does not constitute anti promotion like the example from 
GNU.org, it just promotes all kind of software without distinction as many 
included repositories do not show licensing information, some do, some not.




On January 8, 2021 6:58:22 AM UTC, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 00:00:36 +0300
>> From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
>> Cc: arthur.miller@live.com, rms@gnu.org, ams@gnu.org,
>>   dgutov@yandex.ru, ulm@gentoo.org, emacs-tangents@gnu.org
>> 
>> > > I see that repology.org does not make any distinction and it
>cannot do
>> > > that easily technically. So it does not make neither free
>software nor
>> > > proprietary better or worse by any reasons. And that is the
>problem.
>> > 
>> > How is it a problem? where's the promotion, please?
>> 
>> A WWW index of hyperlinks is promotion of hyperlinks. Simple
>placement
>> of a hyperlink on anybody's website is promotion of the other
>> website.
>
>That doesn't match the meaning of the word, please re-read its
>definition.  Reference and promotion are not the same thing.
>
>> Since 2021, GNU project did not provide references to proprietary
>> software.
>
>What GNU project does is not sacred.  The policy is set by humans, and
>the reasoning for that policy is human reasoning.  Thus, arguments
>about what we have been doing are not valid as reasons against changes
>in that policy, because new convincing reasoning, as well as specific
>new practical use cases brought to light, can legitimately change or
>augment existing policies.  Failure to do so, or even to consider
>changes, would mean that GNU is a dogmatic movement, which it isn't,
>and never has been.
>
>> I would be surprised if GNU project begins doing that from 2021, as
>> if we continue disintegrating the basic principles of GNU project,
>> by 2031 we may expect something worse, maybe total disappearance of
>> GNU project in its sense of free software teaching center.
>
>Forgive me my language, but this is FUD.  You have no real basis for
>spreading such fears.  It isn't like what's proposed here is
>cancellation of the GNU Manifesto or anything basic like that.