Re: official Emacs Docker image

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 22:11:31 -0500 Mike Gerwitz <mtg@gnu.org> wrote: 

MG> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 18:38:41 -0500, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> Your implicit assumption here is that if any part of a service involves
>> nonfree software (in this case, Docker Hub account registration and
>> maintenance), then using any other part of the service (in this case,
>> Docker Hub as an image repository) is against this purpose.

MG> If using X involves temporarily setting aside freedom, then that harms
MG> your freedom, but that's your choice.  But if you then ask others to use
MG> X, and therefore temporarily set aside their freedoms, that is a
MG> different situation entirely.

Mike, I understand all of that. The assumption RMS and others are making
is that we're talking about the same X, as I said in the text you
quoted. That's what I mean by "overreaching": the assumption is that any
non-free software in a service (in this case, a web site) contaminates
any other part of the service (in this case, an image repository).

Coming back to the vegan/vegetarian analogy, if I eat non-vegan foods in
my house but not while you visit, does that mean you can never be a
guest in my house? This is not an extreme analogy: we're literally
excluding tools, people, and communities because of things they choose
to do outside of our domain.

MG> If there is an alternative means to register with Docker Hub, then
MG> perhaps it wouldn't be a barrier, because we wouldn't have to ask others
MG> to temporarily surrender their freedoms.

That would legitimize the assumption I'm questioning, so I would rather
not divert the discussion down that path.

Ted