Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Akib Azmain Turja]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1679 bytes --]


Recently, FSF has sent the following in the Free Software Supporter
list:[1]

> ### Give up GitHub: The time has come!
> 
> *From June 30 by Software Freedom Conservancy*
> 
> [Following GitHub's announcement](https://u.fsf.org/3me) of Copilot as
> a for-profit product, Software Freedom Conservancy calls on all free
> software developers to leave and "Give up GitHub!" The campaign page
> lists major reasons to give up on GitHub. Conservancy says,
> "developers have been, for too long, the proverbial frog in slowly
> boiling water. GitHub's behavior has gotten progressively worse, and
> we've excused, ignored, or otherwise acquiesced to cognitive
> dissonance." Read about the initiative, join the public mailing list,
> and learn how you can support the campaign yourself.
> 
>   * <https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/>

And GitHub is already listed as being a F grade software forge in "GNU
Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations" for atleast more than a
year.[2]  "GNU Ethical Repository Criteria" says that it's
unacceptable.[3]

But it is a matter of regret that many (about 133 out of 356 on my
downloaded archive-contents) GNU Emacs packages on GNU ELPA (let alone
NonGNU ELPA and MELPA) use GitHub.  What steps should we take about
them?  (Kicking them out of ELPA is indeed not an option.)

[1]  https://www.fsf.org/free-software-supporter/2022/july
[2]  https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html
[3]  https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  It's fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Stefan Kangas]

Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org> writes:

> But it is a matter of regret that many (about 133 out of 356 on my
> downloaded archive-contents) GNU Emacs packages on GNU ELPA (let alone
> NonGNU ELPA and MELPA) use GitHub.  What steps should we take about
> them?

All we can do is spread awareness about GitHub and hope for the best.
So I guess there are no further steps to take here.

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Yoni Rabkin]

Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org> writes:

> Recently, FSF has sent the following in the Free Software Supporter
> list:[1]
>
>> ### Give up GitHub: The time has come!
>> 
>> *From June 30 by Software Freedom Conservancy*
>> 
>> [Following GitHub's announcement](https://u.fsf.org/3me) of Copilot as
>> a for-profit product, Software Freedom Conservancy calls on all free
>> software developers to leave and "Give up GitHub!" The campaign page
>> lists major reasons to give up on GitHub. Conservancy says,
>> "developers have been, for too long, the proverbial frog in slowly
>> boiling water. GitHub's behavior has gotten progressively worse, and
>> we've excused, ignored, or otherwise acquiesced to cognitive
>> dissonance." Read about the initiative, join the public mailing list,
>> and learn how you can support the campaign yourself.
>> 
>>   * <https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/>
>
> And GitHub is already listed as being a F grade software forge in "GNU
> Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations" for atleast more than a
> year.[2]  "GNU Ethical Repository Criteria" says that it's
> unacceptable.[3]
>
> But it is a matter of regret that many (about 133 out of 356 on my
> downloaded archive-contents) GNU Emacs packages on GNU ELPA (let alone
> NonGNU ELPA and MELPA) use GitHub.  What steps should we take about
> them?  (Kicking them out of ELPA is indeed not an option.)

Kicking them out would be unkind. But asking that new projects going
forward use a different backend seems reasonable. That ideally should be
accompanied with a few recommendations.

Emms has been always been hosted on Savannah (for many years now), and
it works well for us. Emms is a mid-sized Emacs package with relatively
light development work. Savannah has been a stable and reliable home
over many years.

Personally, I don't prefer to interface life or work through a browser,
so the features, or lack thereof, of the Savannah Website never bothered
me. For Emms we use the mailing lists Savannah provides, Savannah's git
repo, and I try to keep an eye on irc for people commenting about
problems and improvements.

As an Emacs package, yes, we have been asked by many people over the
years why we don't just use github, and I'm sure that Emms is indeed
mirrored there and therefore has been, without any of the copyright
holder's consent, been added to microsoft's mass code theft project.

-- 
   "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Gerry Agbobada]

Hello,

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022, at 15:58, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
>  I'm sure that Emms is indeed
> mirrored there and therefore has been, without any of the copyright
> holder's consent, been added to microsoft's mass code theft project.

Speaking of, did someone check whether Copilot uses verbatim code
snippets from Emacs' mirror [1] ? It might be a nice occasion to see if
FSF legal team can help kicking off in-court contestation against the
project

[1]: https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs/
-- 
Gerry Agbobada

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Bozhidar Batsov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3395 bytes --]

I think that's a very binary view of GitHub - it might be non-free, but given the huge community it has amassed, it's almost suicidal for projects to leave it, as they'd be reducing their contributor-base significantly.  Projects that are hosted outside of GitHub get way less contributions and I don't think the Emacs users would benefit from this. I know that the people in FSF care a lot about freedom, but I care more about building the best Emacs packages possible, even I have to make some ideological compromises from time to time. 

Love it or hate it, GitHub helped a lot for the revival of the Emacs package ecosystem. Especially when you compare this to the days of EmacsWiki and SourceForge. I wouldn't take any steps to discourage package maintainers  from using it.

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022, at 4:58 PM, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
> Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org> writes:
> 
> > Recently, FSF has sent the following in the Free Software Supporter
> > list:[1]
> >
> >> ### Give up GitHub: The time has come!
> >> 
> >> *From June 30 by Software Freedom Conservancy*
> >> 
> >> [Following GitHub's announcement](https://u.fsf.org/3me) of Copilot as
> >> a for-profit product, Software Freedom Conservancy calls on all free
> >> software developers to leave and "Give up GitHub!" The campaign page
> >> lists major reasons to give up on GitHub. Conservancy says,
> >> "developers have been, for too long, the proverbial frog in slowly
> >> boiling water. GitHub's behavior has gotten progressively worse, and
> >> we've excused, ignored, or otherwise acquiesced to cognitive
> >> dissonance." Read about the initiative, join the public mailing list,
> >> and learn how you can support the campaign yourself.
> >> 
> >>   * <https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/>
> >
> > And GitHub is already listed as being a F grade software forge in "GNU
> > Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations" for atleast more than a
> > year.[2]  "GNU Ethical Repository Criteria" says that it's
> > unacceptable.[3]
> >
> > But it is a matter of regret that many (about 133 out of 356 on my
> > downloaded archive-contents) GNU Emacs packages on GNU ELPA (let alone
> > NonGNU ELPA and MELPA) use GitHub.  What steps should we take about
> > them?  (Kicking them out of ELPA is indeed not an option.)
> 
> Kicking them out would be unkind. But asking that new projects going
> forward use a different backend seems reasonable. That ideally should be
> accompanied with a few recommendations.
> 
> Emms has been always been hosted on Savannah (for many years now), and
> it works well for us. Emms is a mid-sized Emacs package with relatively
> light development work. Savannah has been a stable and reliable home
> over many years.
> 
> Personally, I don't prefer to interface life or work through a browser,
> so the features, or lack thereof, of the Savannah Website never bothered
> me. For Emms we use the mailing lists Savannah provides, Savannah's git
> repo, and I try to keep an eye on irc for people commenting about
> problems and improvements.
> 
> As an Emacs package, yes, we have been asked by many people over the
> years why we don't just use github, and I'm sure that Emms is indeed
> mirrored there and therefore has been, without any of the copyright
> holder's consent, been added to microsoft's mass code theft project.
> 
> -- 
>    "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"
> 
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4664 bytes --]

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Akib Azmain Turja]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

Yoni Rabkin <yoni@rabkins.net> writes:

> Kicking them out would be unkind. But asking that new projects going
> forward use a different backend seems reasonable. That ideally should be
> accompanied with a few recommendations.

And it would be a huge inconvenience for the users too.

> Emms has been always been hosted on Savannah (for many years now), and
> it works well for us. Emms is a mid-sized Emacs package with relatively
> light development work. Savannah has been a stable and reliable home
> over many years.

Savannah is obviously a good host, but it's not newbie friendly IMHO.
FSF has a plan for a new forge.  Let's wait and see what they give us.

> As an Emacs package, yes, we have been asked by many people over the
> years why we don't just use github, and I'm sure that Emms is indeed
> mirrored there and therefore has been, without any of the copyright
> holder's consent, been added to microsoft's mass code theft project.

Almost all Emacs related things are mirrored to GitHub by Emacsmirror.

Mirroring to GitHub is obviously a problem, but at least better than
hosting on GitHub, because that means that the project is itself
supporting "evil" GitHub.

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  It's fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Akib Azmain Turja]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2134 bytes --]

"Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev> writes:

> I think that's a very binary view of GitHub - it might be non-free,
> but given the huge community it has amassed, it's almost suicidal for
> projects to leave it, as they'd be reducing their contributor-base
> significantly.  Projects that are hosted outside of GitHub get way
> less contributions and I don't think the Emacs users would benefit
> from this. I know that the people in FSF care a lot about freedom, but
> I care more about building the best Emacs packages possible, even I
> have to make some ideological compromises from time to time.

This looks similar to saying, "It's suicidal to not use Copilot, because
without it you have to do the programming yourself and decrease your
productivity."

Emacs, GCC, Guix, EMMS and many other projects use Savannah, and there's
thousands of other popular projects, including some of the most
successful ones, that are not using GitHub.  Are they falling behind?

Your statement is contradicting your own blog post: "Firefox is the Only
Alternative".[1]

However, I must agree that projects on GitHub gets more activity.  But
that's because most of the developers use (i.e. used by) that.  And
that's why more people join GitHub, they are forced.  We must break this
cycle.

> Love it or hate it, GitHub helped a lot for the revival of the Emacs
> package ecosystem. Especially when you compare this to the days of
> EmacsWiki and SourceForge.

Just like saying, "Windows has made using a computer easy, so I won't
discourage people from using it."

> I wouldn't take any steps to discourage package maintainers  from
> using it.

This way you are just worsening the situation.  (But you obviously have
the freedom to do that.)  To increase the "contributor-base" outside
GitHub, we have to convince maintainers to move away from GitHub.

Footnotes:
[1]  https://batsov.com/articles/2021/11/28/firefox-is-the-only-alternative/

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  It's fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>
> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 22:17:37 +0600
> 
> "Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev> writes:
> 
> > I think that's a very binary view of GitHub - it might be non-free,
> > but given the huge community it has amassed, it's almost suicidal for
> > projects to leave it, as they'd be reducing their contributor-base
> > significantly.  Projects that are hosted outside of GitHub get way
> > less contributions and I don't think the Emacs users would benefit
> > from this. I know that the people in FSF care a lot about freedom, but
> > I care more about building the best Emacs packages possible, even I
> > have to make some ideological compromises from time to time.
> 
> This looks similar to saying, "It's suicidal to not use Copilot, because
> without it you have to do the programming yourself and decrease your
> productivity."
> 
> Emacs, GCC, Guix, EMMS and many other projects use Savannah, and there's
> thousands of other popular projects, including some of the most
> successful ones, that are not using GitHub.  Are they falling behind?
> 
> Your statement is contradicting your own blog post: "Firefox is the Only
> Alternative".[1]
> 
> However, I must agree that projects on GitHub gets more activity.  But
> that's because most of the developers use (i.e. used by) that.  And
> that's why more people join GitHub, they are forced.  We must break this
> cycle.
> 
> > Love it or hate it, GitHub helped a lot for the revival of the Emacs
> > package ecosystem. Especially when you compare this to the days of
> > EmacsWiki and SourceForge.
> 
> Just like saying, "Windows has made using a computer easy, so I won't
> discourage people from using it."
> 
> > I wouldn't take any steps to discourage package maintainers  from
> > using it.
> 
> This way you are just worsening the situation.  (But you obviously have
> the freedom to do that.)  To increase the "contributor-base" outside
> GitHub, we have to convince maintainers to move away from GitHub.

Guys, this is quickly becoming off topic here.  Although the Subject
says "Emacs packages", the discussion has long ago ceased to be about
that, and you are now discussing GitHub, SourceForge, Savannah
hosting, etc.  Would you mind taking this to emacs-tangents?

Thanks.

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Akib Azmain Turja]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2827 bytes --]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>
>> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 22:17:37 +0600
>> 
>> "Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev> writes:
>> 
>> > I think that's a very binary view of GitHub - it might be non-free,
>> > but given the huge community it has amassed, it's almost suicidal for
>> > projects to leave it, as they'd be reducing their contributor-base
>> > significantly.  Projects that are hosted outside of GitHub get way
>> > less contributions and I don't think the Emacs users would benefit
>> > from this. I know that the people in FSF care a lot about freedom, but
>> > I care more about building the best Emacs packages possible, even I
>> > have to make some ideological compromises from time to time.
>> 
>> This looks similar to saying, "It's suicidal to not use Copilot, because
>> without it you have to do the programming yourself and decrease your
>> productivity."
>> 
>> Emacs, GCC, Guix, EMMS and many other projects use Savannah, and there's
>> thousands of other popular projects, including some of the most
>> successful ones, that are not using GitHub.  Are they falling behind?
>> 
>> Your statement is contradicting your own blog post: "Firefox is the Only
>> Alternative".[1]
>> 
>> However, I must agree that projects on GitHub gets more activity.  But
>> that's because most of the developers use (i.e. used by) that.  And
>> that's why more people join GitHub, they are forced.  We must break this
>> cycle.
>> 
>> > Love it or hate it, GitHub helped a lot for the revival of the Emacs
>> > package ecosystem. Especially when you compare this to the days of
>> > EmacsWiki and SourceForge.
>> 
>> Just like saying, "Windows has made using a computer easy, so I won't
>> discourage people from using it."
>> 
>> > I wouldn't take any steps to discourage package maintainers  from
>> > using it.
>> 
>> This way you are just worsening the situation.  (But you obviously have
>> the freedom to do that.)  To increase the "contributor-base" outside
>> GitHub, we have to convince maintainers to move away from GitHub.
>
> Guys, this is quickly becoming off topic here.  Although the Subject
> says "Emacs packages", the discussion has long ago ceased to be about
> that, and you are now discussing GitHub, SourceForge, Savannah
> hosting, etc.  Would you mind taking this to emacs-tangents?
>
> Thanks.

Sorry for that.  But the only thing I ask in this thread is what to do
with GNU ELPA packages on unethical GitHub?  It's considered
unacceptable for hosting any free software (including GNU software) by
the Free Software Foundation.

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  It's fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Stefan Monnier]

> Sorry for that.  But the only thing I ask in this thread is what to do
> with GNU ELPA packages on unethical GitHub?

We should encourage use of more friendly hosting sites.
[ BTW, I don't think calling Github "evil" will help in any way.  ]
I'd be happy to hear suggestions how we can do that (e.g. add
additional features to elpa.gnu.org to better integrate packages hosted
on sr.ht?).

> It's considered unacceptable for hosting any free software (including
> GNU software) by the Free Software Foundation.

GNU ELPA itself doesn't rely on Github's proprietary code (it accesses
Github only via the standard Git protocol) and users of GNU ELPA
packages don't really need to know or care where's the upstream (they
have access to a complete Git mirror right in `elpa.git` and every
package normally comes with an email address to contact the maintainer
without having to go through Github).


        Stefan

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Yoni Rabkin]

Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 22:17:37 +0600
>>> 
>>> "Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev> writes:
>>> 
>>> > I think that's a very binary view of GitHub - it might be non-free,
>>> > but given the huge community it has amassed, it's almost suicidal for
>>> > projects to leave it, as they'd be reducing their contributor-base
>>> > significantly.  Projects that are hosted outside of GitHub get way
>>> > less contributions and I don't think the Emacs users would benefit
>>> > from this. I know that the people in FSF care a lot about freedom, but
>>> > I care more about building the best Emacs packages possible, even I
>>> > have to make some ideological compromises from time to time.
>>> 
>>> This looks similar to saying, "It's suicidal to not use Copilot, because
>>> without it you have to do the programming yourself and decrease your
>>> productivity."
>>> 
>>> Emacs, GCC, Guix, EMMS and many other projects use Savannah, and there's
>>> thousands of other popular projects, including some of the most
>>> successful ones, that are not using GitHub.  Are they falling behind?
>>> 
>>> Your statement is contradicting your own blog post: "Firefox is the Only
>>> Alternative".[1]
>>> 
>>> However, I must agree that projects on GitHub gets more activity.  But
>>> that's because most of the developers use (i.e. used by) that.  And
>>> that's why more people join GitHub, they are forced.  We must break this
>>> cycle.
>>> 
>>> > Love it or hate it, GitHub helped a lot for the revival of the Emacs
>>> > package ecosystem. Especially when you compare this to the days of
>>> > EmacsWiki and SourceForge.
>>> 
>>> Just like saying, "Windows has made using a computer easy, so I won't
>>> discourage people from using it."
>>> 
>>> > I wouldn't take any steps to discourage package maintainers  from
>>> > using it.
>>> 
>>> This way you are just worsening the situation.  (But you obviously have
>>> the freedom to do that.)  To increase the "contributor-base" outside
>>> GitHub, we have to convince maintainers to move away from GitHub.
>>
>> Guys, this is quickly becoming off topic here.  Although the Subject
>> says "Emacs packages", the discussion has long ago ceased to be about
>> that, and you are now discussing GitHub, SourceForge, Savannah
>> hosting, etc.  Would you mind taking this to emacs-tangents?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Sorry for that.  But the only thing I ask in this thread is what to do
> with GNU ELPA packages on unethical GitHub?  It's considered
> unacceptable for hosting any free software (including GNU software) by
> the Free Software Foundation.

Exactly, which is why I answered about Emms... an Emacs package. Is
there a mailing list to discuss the larger Emacs package world, as
opposed to Emacs proper?

-- 
   "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>
> Cc: bozhidar@batsov.dev, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 00:03:25 +0600
> 
> > Guys, this is quickly becoming off topic here.  Although the Subject
> > says "Emacs packages", the discussion has long ago ceased to be about
> > that, and you are now discussing GitHub, SourceForge, Savannah
> > hosting, etc.  Would you mind taking this to emacs-tangents?
> >
> > Thanks.
> 
> Sorry for that.  But the only thing I ask in this thread is what to do
> with GNU ELPA packages on unethical GitHub?

That part was OK, but you are long past that point, and all the
subsequent discussions were about GitHub and not about the packages.
So if you want to continue this here, either wait for someone to
answer your question, or go back to talking about the packages.  There
are other places for discussing GitHub morality.

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Yoni Rabkin <yoni@rabkins.net>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  bozhidar@batsov.dev,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 14:48:27 -0400
> 
> Is there a mailing list to discuss the larger Emacs package world,
> as opposed to Emacs proper?

It depends on what you want to discuss.  If its development of those
packages, then this is the place.  If it's politics, I'd prefer that
you take it to emacs-tangents.

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Yoni Rabkin]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Yoni Rabkin <yoni@rabkins.net>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  bozhidar@batsov.dev,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 14:48:27 -0400
>> 
>> Is there a mailing list to discuss the larger Emacs package world,
>> as opposed to Emacs proper?
>
> It depends on what you want to discuss.  If its development of those
> packages, then this is the place.  If it's politics, I'd prefer that
> you take it to emacs-tangents.

understood; thank you

-- 
   "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Tim Cross]

Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org> writes:

>
> Savannah is obviously a good host, but it's not newbie friendly IMHO.
> FSF has a plan for a new forge.  Let's wait and see what they give us.
>

They do? Any link to information on that?

Two points to note which I think are relevant

1. This was all brought up quite some time ago and RMS basically came
down saying that on balance, we have to accept people will host packages
on github and that being hosted there was not to be an impediment to
being included in ELPA or nonGNU ELPA. This might seem contradictory
given FSF statements about github, but the world is full of
contradiction. The FSF even has  a link to Paypal on their donations
page despite their position on not encouraging the use of non-free JS. 

2. Until there is a solution which does provide high level functionality
similar to that provided by github, you just yelling at the wind. If you
really want people to stop using github for Emacs packages, you need to
either look at developing higher level functionality which sits on top
of sevannah or help add functionality to other forges, like gitlab or
sourceHut so that these other forges become as appealing to these
developers.   

3. If you try to control where packages are hosted/developed by
restricting access to ELPA/nonGNU ELPA, all you will do is encourage
repositories like MELPA, which provide no assurance regarding package
licenses. At least ELPA/nonGNU ELPA are all libre. licensed. 

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Yoni Rabkin]

Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

> Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org> writes:
>
>>
>> Savannah is obviously a good host, but it's not newbie friendly IMHO.
>> FSF has a plan for a new forge.  Let's wait and see what they give us.
>>
>
> They do? Any link to information on that?
>
> Two points to note which I think are relevant
>
> 1. This was all brought up quite some time ago and RMS basically came
> down saying that on balance, we have to accept people will host packages
> on github and that being hosted there was not to be an impediment to
> being included in ELPA or nonGNU ELPA. This might seem contradictory
> given FSF statements about github, but the world is full of
> contradiction. The FSF even has  a link to Paypal on their donations
> page despite their position on not encouraging the use of non-free JS. 
>
> 2. Until there is a solution which does provide high level functionality
> similar to that provided by github, you just yelling at the wind. If you
> really want people to stop using github for Emacs packages, you need to
> either look at developing higher level functionality which sits on top
> of sevannah or help add functionality to other forges, like gitlab or
> sourceHut so that these other forges become as appealing to these
> developers.   
>
> 3. If you try to control where packages are hosted/developed by
> restricting access to ELPA/nonGNU ELPA, all you will do is encourage
> repositories like MELPA, which provide no assurance regarding package
> licenses. At least ELPA/nonGNU ELPA are all libre. licensed. 

My understanding of their request, is that Eli asks that this discussion
continue on the emacs-tangents mailing list.

-- 
   "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > This way you are just worsening the situation.  (But you obviously have
  > the freedom to do that.)  To increase the "contributor-base" outside
  > GitHub, we have to convince maintainers to move away from GitHub.

I agree.

But I should point out also that GitHub has several bad practices
that have done great harm to the free software commnity.
See https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html for
what they are.  These have happened for years, and we have urged people
to reject GitHub for years.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > 1. This was all brought up quite some time ago and RMS basically came
  > down saying that on balance, we have to accept people will host packages
  > on github and that being hosted there was not to be an impediment to
  > being included in ELPA or nonGNU ELPA. This might seem contradictory
  > given FSF statements about github,

This is not a contradiction.  We urge people not to host anything on
GitHub -- see https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
-- but we do not reject packages simply for being hosted there.
Those are two different questions.

There are many computing practices we criticize or condenm, but we
don't react to them all with the greatest possible degree of
belligerence.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Akib Azmain Turja]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2099 bytes --]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > This way you are just worsening the situation.  (But you obviously have
>   > the freedom to do that.)  To increase the "contributor-base" outside
>   > GitHub, we have to convince maintainers to move away from GitHub.
>
> I agree.
>
> But I should point out also that GitHub has several bad practices
> that have done great harm to the free software commnity.
> See https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html for
> what they are.  These have happened for years, and we have urged people
> to reject GitHub for years.
>
> -- 
> Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
> Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
> Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
>
>

And obviously, we need federation.  AFAIK we have federation for social
network, but not yet for software development.  And this is even more
important for developer freedom (user freedom is already guaranteed by
license), so that they can participate in development using any forge
instance, increasing contributor-base outside GitHub and breaking the
GitHub monopoly.

There is a project called ForgeFed <https://forgefed.org/> working on
this.  It says that Gitea is implementing that (maybe draft)
specification.  Will Savannah implement fedaration?  And by the way,
what's the status of FSF's new forge?  There is no update for (maybe) a
year.

This discussion is no longer related to Emacs, but related to free
software philosophy and/or politics.  Where should we move it?
emacs-tangent list doesn't seem to be a good fit, since this is not
related to Emacs at all.

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  It's fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Po Lu]

Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org> writes:

> This discussion is no longer related to Emacs, but related to free
> software philosophy and/or politics.  Where should we move it?

Probably gnu-misc-discuss.

Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>
> Cc: bozhidar@batsov.dev, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 14:11:34 +0600
> 
> This discussion is no longer related to Emacs, but related to free
> software philosophy and/or politics.  Where should we move it?
> emacs-tangent list doesn't seem to be a good fit, since this is not
> related to Emacs at all.

emacs-tangents is intended for any discussions that are tangentially
related to Emacs, so it sounds like a good place for this one.