Re: Review a blog post about emacs-devel

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

Hi Yuan,

On 30.04.2020 18:19, Yuan Fu wrote:

>> On Apr 29, 2020, at 10:28 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>>
>> Would you please talk about "free software" or "libre software", not
>> "open source”?
>> [...]
>> Also, please don't use GitHub as a standard of comparison.  That would
>> promote GitHub, which is counter to what we aim to do.
>>
> 
> I removed “open source” since it’s not the main subject. I used GitHub as a comparison because it _is_ the most familiar workflow right now. I don’t think admitting the fact promotes GitHub. Also I wouldn’t say I used GitHub as a standard as comparison, but simply as another well-known workflow. Here is my edited first paragraph:
> 
> Emacs, /the/ editor we all use and love, has been running for decades, receiving contribution from hundreds of hackers along the way. Because it predates recent popular workflows (a.k.a GitHub and friends) by many years, you can’t do the usual thing—open issues, fork and make PR’s, etc. However, Emacs’s development workflow isn’t as tedious and difficult as many people imagines (in particular, you don’t need Gnus or deal with email in Emacs, or setup anything fancy).
> 
> 
>> Please don't promote Emacs Lisp packages that we don't have papers
>> to include in Emacs or GNU ELPA.  That includes Magit.
>>
> 
> I think we should promote all free software, non-selectively. Maybe the freedom of Magit is less secure because Jonas haven’t signed the assignment (yet); but I don’t think it’s enough difference to treat Magit differently.

These are good counter-points, so I think it's just fine if you make 
your post without honoring some of Richard's requests.

Swapping "open source" for "free software" is a good thing to do, though.