On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 23:13:58 -0500, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> 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).

The use of the underlying repository ("registry") is fine: it doesn't
require any non-free software.  I can use any image in the Docker Hub
repository without any ethical concerns.  If there's an Emacs docker
image, then I as a user of that image lose nothing freedom-wise.

The problem is that to upload an image you need an account on Docker
Hub.  And to register that account, you need to go to hub.docker.com,
which requires that you run a non-free JavaScript program.

So it's only the JavaScript program on hub.docker.com that's
bad.  Unfortunately, it's a necessary step to get the Emacs image into
the repository to begin with.

So I think we might be in agreement: there's nothing wrong with the
registry.

> 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.

In rms' analogy, your house would be a place to share vegan meals, but
to bring a meal to share with others, you must first try a dish
containing meat.  But if you're not bringing a dish to share, you can
simply enter and enjoy the festivities.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B  2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05
Old: 2217 5B02 E626 BC98 D7C0  C2E5 F22B B815 8EE3 0EAB
https://mikegerwitz.com