From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Grim Schjetne Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: enable MELPA & Marmalade by defaul [was: mykie.el] Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:41:28 +0100 Message-ID: <874n5fhn1j.fsf@schjetne.se> References: <87bnzshlo5.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87bnzshlo5.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <20140103.200846.1574807089640559527.cokesboy@gmail.com> <87a9f8g22x.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <76f5b9cd-3452-4189-b3a0-30dc55a3ee55@default> <87wqic65kj.fsf@wanadoo.es> <874n5gfvjv.fsf@mac.com> <93a2d060-c7f8-4ce3-9bff-f7397be690ff@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389105788 7904 80.91.229.3 (7 Jan 2014 14:43:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:43:08 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 07 15:43:15 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W0XsA-00083k-33 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:43:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40993 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0Xs9-0000TQ-ND for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:43:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58617) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0Xr6-0007LS-LC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:42:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0Xr0-00077F-HW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:42:08 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp-out21.han.skanova.net ([195.67.226.208]:53583) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0Xr0-00076P-84 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:42:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Jjaro (77.222.201.149) by smtp-out21.han.skanova.net (8.5.133) (authenticated as u84610876) id 52C0558300258F78 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 15:42:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: <93a2d060-c7f8-4ce3-9bff-f7397be690ff@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 6 Jan 2014 21:39:35 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 195.67.226.208 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:167607 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: > Putting them in the available-by-default list does *not* > recommend them, IMO. And it is certainly possible for GNU > Emacs to post a big banner saying that the ONLY repository > it recommends is its own ELPA repository, genuine GNU ELPA. > Nothing wrong with that. Would that satisfy your > recommendation worry? A reluctant endorsement is still an endorsement. > And anyway, nothing says that those repositories involve much > non-free software, or even any at all. I viewed a random package in Marmalade and it had no indication of a license whatsoever. Perhaps the author intended to release it as free software or could easily be convinced to do so, but as it stands now, Marmalade is not completely free software. > Without looking, I'd bet that the *overwhelming mass* of packages > in those two repositories are free software (GPL'd). Why make > users jump through extra hoops to access all that free software, > even if there might also be a non-free package there somewhere? > > Do you think that a downloading user cannot tell whether some > software is free or not? If so, is this about trying to hide > that non-free software from their unsuspecting hands, so they > cannot make the awful mistake of not recognizing it? It seems like a reasonable assumption that the overwhelming mass is licensed under the GPL, but I absolutely do think a user cannot tell whether an unlabelled package is free or not, at least I can't, not without consulting the author. > If so, that kind of protection-by-ignorance is doomed to be > ineffective and even counterproductive in the long run, IMHO. > >> RMS and his defense of the FSF position (and composure in >> the face of very shabby treatment) are remarkable. > > Agreed 100%. And so? Has RMS said that listing those two > repositories would hurt free software? Maybe a lawyer from > the FSF will chime in. (As if we didn't get enough > software-development-by-legal-department these days..., but > I digress.) You're suggesting it's a legal issue. I don't see how it is. It's not illegal to recommend non-free software. > How about my Samsung - Netflix analogy? Do you think you'd > stand a chance if you sued Samsung because one of Netflix's > films offended you? Is Samsung liable for bad Netflix films > because it makes Netflix available by default on your new TV? As far as I know it's not illegal to include Netflix in your products either. It's a social problem, not a legal one, and yes, Samsung should be held responsible for it. If they were distributing Busybox without the source, that would be both a social and a legal issue. > I think you are really exaggerating there (but I am not a lawyer). > > That sounds very much like the kind of thing one sometimes hears > in commercial companies about GNU (!) and why GNU software should > be avoided like the plague by companies because it supposedly > sucks all of the company's own software into a free-software > tainted purgatory. Dueling bogeymen. Although unrelated to the current discussion, Bradley Kuhn does a good job explaining why some companies oppose copyleft software of which they are not sole copyright holders: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html -- GS