Re: as for Calc and the math library

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: arthur miller <arthur.miller@live.com>
> CC: "suhailsingh247@gmail.com" <suhailsingh247@gmail.com>,
> 	"gerd.moellmann@gmail.com" <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>, "nicolas@n16f.net"
> 	<nicolas@n16f.net>, "emacs-devel@gnu.org" <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 20:09:56 +0000
> 
> >No.  What we need is the declaration _by_the_library_ being loaded
> >that it complies.  It is not an agreement between Emacs and the
> >library, it's a _requirement_ on our part that only the library itself
> >can fulfill.
> 
> I have seen your previous answers to others, and I do understand the point you
> make, but I think the argument fails because a module can be just a proxy to a
> non-free library.

A module that declares GPL compatibility and loads non-free library is
either lying or (if the library is distributed with the module, as I'd
expect) in clear violation of the GPL.

> >expect _us_ to do it for them, or make it easier for them to do it?
> 
> No, of course I don't expect that from you. My point was (is?) that it is a
> trade-off between convinience for Emacs users who would use it as intendended,
> only with free software, vs the inconvience it causes.

Yes, it's a trade-off.  The GNU Project decided where to take this
trade-off, and I promised to uphold that policy.  So can we please
stop this futile discussion, which just went one more circle?

> If you look at some other projects which are more interesting than Emacs to use
> as front-ends for non-free software, do we see influx of companies misusing
> them? I am thinking of Gtk, KDE/Gnome libs and Libre/OpenOffice for example. All
> of those projects could be used to plug-in proprietary software, yet, there are
> not so many cases, if any? Even Qt which comes as a dual licensed does not seem
> to be misused that way. Perhaps I am just uninformed?
> 
> You have mentioned llvm, but I am not familiar enough with them. As I understand
> they are financied by Apple, Nvidia and few other big tech companies with
> explicit goal to have an alternative to GCC just for the more permissive
> licensing.

Once again, please take these off-topic discussions elsewhere.

> I said it in the beginning: sometimes it is useful to revisit policies
> when circumstancies have changed.

You are talking to the wrong guy about revisiting policies.  As
already explained more than once.