From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jean Louis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 01:02:08 +0300 Message-ID: <20201016220208.GT11061@protected.rcdrun.com> References: <20201016142436.187b8210@argon> <20201016152523.6fdfef65@argon> <6142a27f-c53b-35bf-1038-5f047395e868@yandex.ru> <20201016204531.77fab05b@argon> <725aa7c4-321f-4483-5a21-a148ff7f119b@yandex.ru> <20201016191758.GK11061@protected.rcdrun.com> <86b80c47-873b-5e83-cea0-5ac1927f0015@yandex.ru> <20201016200305.GO11061@protected.rcdrun.com> <8c8c8e62-119f-db62-2e0a-7af5d9b3f20e@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="21056"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.0 (2020-05-02) Cc: Marcel Ventosa , Richard Stallman , Thibaut Verron , emacs-devel To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 17 00:04:08 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kTXpY-0005MK-9J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 00:04:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50046 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kTXpX-0000zJ-5Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:04:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46810) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kTXno-0008VF-15 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:02:20 -0400 Original-Received: from static.rcdrun.com ([95.85.24.50]:57069) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kTXnl-000305-3S; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:02:19 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([::ffff:41.210.154.50]) (AUTH: PLAIN admin, TLS: TLS1.2,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by static.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 00000000002A0B3D.000000005F8A1865.00007DB5; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:02:12 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8c8c8e62-119f-db62-2e0a-7af5d9b3f20e@yandex.ru> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.85.24.50; envelope-from=bugs@gnu.support; helo=static.rcdrun.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/16 12:33:49 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:257881 Archived-At: * Dmitry Gutov [2020-10-17 00:10]: > If it had a policy to only publish wrappers for proprietary software, it > would be a "repository for wrappers of proprietary software". > > But a repository which has a policy to only publish free software, is a > repository for free software. > > > For same reaso Debian GNU/Linux cannot be said to be free, at many > > pages they guide users to include non-free software, unspoken from > > Archlinux or other distributions. > > I don't think that's how it works. If the software is free, we call > it free. Maybe I have expressed myself wrongly. It is not a free software repository if it publishes non-free software, it is mixture of the two. So MELPA is also mixture of software that is truly free software and that other group of software which has the only purpose to interact with non-free software, more or less promotional tool in free software community to capture some users for proprietary software, or pathetic way to promote proprietary software. > > That question is best answered here: > > https://github.com/melpa/melpa/issues/7185 > > Good example of infighting. Not an answer. Question about MELPA will be answered there. It is best answered there, we will see if MELPA authors do like idea or maybe like Archlinux do not mind if some packages are steering users to access proprietary software. > It would be a lot more polite to include your actual name in the account > description, by the way. Calling yourself "GNU Support" looks like an > overreach. I could not register the really intended domain support.gnu, so it is other way around. > > sure there are reasons for initiator for the survey, those reasons may > > be that whay you call biased, I call it opinions, but not necessarily > > unjust opinions (biased). > > Removing a known popular option from the answers makes a survey biased. > > > It is better to say opinionated. > > Are we reinventing English words now? Maybe you are native English speaker, I am not. So I am consulting dictionaries for fine differences, like Wordnut. biased * Overview of verb bias The verb bias has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts) 1. bias -- (influence in an unfair way; "you are biasing my choice by telling me yours") 2. bias, predetermine -- (cause to be biased) while opinionated: * Overview of adj opinionated The adj opinionated has 1 sense (first 1 from tagged texts) 1. (1) opinionated, opinionative, self-opinionated -- (obstinate in your opinions) * Overview of verb obstinate The verb obstinate has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts) 1. obstinate -- (persist stubbornly; "he obstinates himself against all rational arguments") GNU project is obstinated stubbornly not to promote proprietary software and cannot endorse software repositories that do so. It is not biased because the stubborn opinion is not equal to being influenced in unfair way, quite opposite it is being influenced in just way. Free software is good because it helps the user to control its own computing. That package that is made for Emacs can be issued under GNU GPL, yet with the only reason to circumvent the purpose of GPL so that proprietary software makers can control such user, then such software repository is not ethical and questions about such repository are not relevant for GNU Emacs development, as it is already known that MELPA is not endorsed for the discussed reasons. In fact, how much we have written here, instead why you did not write to MELPA on that issue and ask them to remove those few packages?