Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking

[Thibaut Verron <thibaut.verron@gmail.com>]

Le sam. 12 déc. 2020 à 07:37, Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Bottom line is that if packages in non-GNU ELPA are hosted on Github, like it or not, you are encouraging the use of Github. Yes, there are many Github features you can access from the command line and via other means, like commenting on issues via email, but these other mechanisms typically take more effort and are not as convenient (and have limitations - you cannot use markup when commenting on issues via email for example).
>
> The non-GNU ELPA is supposed to be a repository for packages which are GPL compliant and it is a reasonable expectation that those who make their packages GPL compliant do so because they support the philosophical goals of the FSF.

GPL licensing is what's the default elisp auto-insert inserts. And
apparently it's not even clear if it is legal to license packages
under any incompatible license.

I wouldn't read a statement of support in the mere fact that a package
if GPL compliant.

I also recall a discussion where some developers were worried that
assigning a copyright to the FSF was an official statement of
philosophical support, and that it was a statement they were not
willing to make. The official answer was that there is no such
statement in the copyright.

> Therefore, I don't think it is too much to ask that they also have those packages hosted on a platform which also supports these same philosophical goals. As I understand it, non-GNU ELPA is not supposed to be a repository for all other packages where the author doe snot want to assign copyright to the FSF. It is supposed to be for all other GPL compliant packages where the author does not want to assign copyright to the FSF.

Or can't. In a lot of cases it turns out that contacting all
contributors to obtain copyright assignment is a difficult task, or
that some contributors are not legally allowed to transfer their
copyright.

> I think a mandatory requirement should simply be that any packages which go into non-GNU ELPA are hosted on an approved platform. We could point to a list of such hosting providers e.g. https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html and say Grade C or better only. .

There is no such requirement for GNU ELPA at the moment.

> This will also have the added incentive of encouraging better hosting options. It might even encourage GitLab for example, to enhance their environment to meet Class B.

Couldn't it just as well be an occasion to encourage Github to improve?

> Many people have selected Github for hosting simply because it was the best known solution. With a little encouragement, they would probably be willing to move to at least GitLab, which offers many of the similar convenience features of Github.  Being able to host your package in non-GNU ELPA might be that encouragement.

There is a lot of inertia involved in relocating a package with
hundreds of contributors.

I agree that some of the difficulties posed by copyright assignment do
not apply for relocation (e.g. that one contributor 7 years ago whom
nobody can contact), but there is an effort involved in both.