From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CVS is the `released version' Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:56:08 +0200 Message-ID: <86hcq5fg13.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <2cd46e7f0705101124r72000f78xdf05d18ca815ca57@mail.gmail.com> <17991.47259.210100.801472@localhost.localdomain> <87odkdl779.fsf@baal.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1179820578 7119 80.91.229.12 (22 May 2007 07:56:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 07:56:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Trent Buck Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 22 09:56:16 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HqPE8-0002bp-0x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 09:56:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HqPE7-0005sN-P2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 03:56:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HqPE4-0005rz-4V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 03:56:12 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HqPE2-0005rW-Gf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 03:56:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HqPE2-0005rT-CU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 03:56:10 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HqPE1-0001AY-OG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 03:56:10 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06688 for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 09:56:07 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 7215 invoked from network); 22 May 2007 07:56:08 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 May 2007 07:56:08 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0BEE48F832; Tue, 22 May 2007 09:56:08 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87odkdl779.fsf@baal.lan> (Trent Buck's message of "Tue\, 22 May 2007 16\:10\:18 +1000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:71581 Archived-At: Trent Buck writes: > Richard Stallman writes: > >> In that case, I think the real proposal is not "add a package system >> to Emacs" but rather "set up a standard site for Emacs add-ons". > > Agreed. > >> If the add-ons are put in such a web site, finding and installing them >> would be much easier. Maybe it is worth doing that, though calling it >> a "package system" seems like hype. >> >> But there are two important non-technical problems with this approach. >> >> 1. It could reduce the incentive for people to assign copyright on >> their code. >> >> 2. It would mean that Emacs refers people very strongly to a site >> that isn't run by the GNU Project. I don't know what their policies >> are. But even if they are good, now, we have no way to assure that >> remains so. >> >> These problems would be eliminated if we put the package repository on >> gnu.org and limit it to packages that are copyright FSF. > > Would it be acceptable to have two repositories "main" and > "non-fsf", both hosted on gnu.org, and only have the former enabled > by default? That is, packages in "non-fsf" would not be listed or > installable unless the user explicitly added something like this to > their .emacs: > > (add-to-list 'package-repositories "http://elpa.gnu.org/non-fsf") > > That way Free software packages that are NOT assigned to the FSF > (such as paredit, which is declares itself to be in the Public > Domain), can still be installed easily by users via the package.el > framework, but only after the user explicitly says "please enable > installation of Free, but non-FSF packages". It would also make it > easy to move a package into "main" once the paperwork was done by > simply changing a few headers -- the rest of the package.el > integration would already have been done and tested in the "non-fsf" > repository. I don't think that "non-fsf" is a good label: it focuses on a legal aspect, not on the motivation behind it. And it is irrelevant for the end user whether or not a GPLed piece of software is copyrighted by the FSF or someone else (unless she wants to negotiate a different license, but that's quite unlikely with Emacs packages). If one wanted to make such a distinction, it would likely be better to use something like http://elpa.gnu.org/core or http://elpa.gnu.org/gnu-packages and http://elpa.nongnu.org/contrib and make clear that the core packages require formal approval that will imply a copyright assignment as a rule. -- David Kastrup