> Arch GNU/Linux does not face the issue of making sure that packages
> don't recommend nonfree software.  Indeed, it includes nonfree
> programs.  But that issue is part of our core goal.
> We cannot follow their example into working against our principles.

My explanation was solely about the technical aspects of the repositories.
It goes without saying that non-free packages (that is, packages without a
GPL-compatible license) are not welcome.  Even MELPA switched to only
allowing inclusion of free packages and went through the effort of checking
each submitted package for GPL-compatibility, including removal of
non-compliant ones.  Additionally to this their website is fully functional
when accessed in a browser with the LibreJS extension.

> From that rough description of the Arch User Repository, I get the
> impression it doesn't have any step at which that checking would be
> done.  So we would have to add that.

The Arch User Repository would be the equivalent of MELPA.  It is not
something the FSF would be directly concerned with and merely serve as a way
to gauge candidates for inclusion into the "second ELPA".

> If "community-provided ELPA repositories" means those that include packages
> that depend on nonfree programs, we can't "work with" that.  The only thing
> we can legitimately say about them is "don't go there."

This point somewhat surprises me.  By that logic GNU ELPA itself would be
"don't go there" as it hosts the excorporate package [1] which depends on
Microsoft's Exchange service, a non-free Service as a Software Substitute.

Vasilij

[1]: http://elpa.gnu.org/packages/excorporate.html