From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jean Louis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:53:08 +0300 Message-ID: References: <6193374b-a60d-ba82-91b5-afdede18e3bb@yandex.ru> <72871d3a-3b6a-d6fd-01cc-4248f817923c@yandex.ru> <801f93f3-8c1f-5f5f-6351-e1169bc309ae@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38082"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/2.0 (3d08634) (2020-11-07) Cc: ulm@gentoo.org, ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Richard Stallman , Dmitry Gutov To: Arthur Miller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 06 19:59:24 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kxE1k-0009m4-HY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 19:59:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55444 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxE1j-000280-J8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:59:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59672) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxE0A-0001K2-86 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:57:46 -0500 Original-Received: from stw1.rcdrun.com ([217.170.207.13]:42871) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxE05-000088-Gq; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:57:45 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([::ffff:41.210.154.95]) (AUTH: PLAIN securesender, TLS: TLS1.2,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by stw1.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 0000000000294DDB.000000005FF60821.00006FBB; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 11:57:37 -0700 Mail-Followup-To: Arthur Miller , Richard Stallman , ams@gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , ulm@gentoo.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.170.207.13; envelope-from=bugs@gnu.support; helo=stw1.rcdrun.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:262626 Archived-At: * Arthur Miller [2021-01-06 19:24]: > > As from example above, it does not says nothing about the license at > > all and thus does not serve to you as user to "recognize if software > > is free or not-free". That is why you should make better your personal > > research. > If it says non-free than it is quite clear for anyone with a bit of > intelligence in their head that it is, well: NON-FREE! Try using it yourself. Since I gave you my last example, I did not get impression that you improved your perception. This is because you did not try it. My conclusion is that it does not say for every piece of software that it is non-free. It is probably only for those software from Debian, that it gives the name of repository in the fourth column and Debian keeps name of repository "non-free". Repology.org server provides references to software packages from plethora of repositories. Other repositories may not name the repository "non-free", so you may not easily distinguish about that. And, I also gave example that package information may not show at all which license is used by specific package. Sometimes it may show, sometimes not. Take for example the proprietary black list by the fully free Parabola GNU/Linux distribution: https://git.parabola.nu/blacklist.git/plain/blacklist.txt and then use repology.el package to search for those packages. Then try searching for a popular non-free browser such as "Opera" You may find an entry like this: SlackBuilds network/opera-developer 74.0.3890.0 network edps.mundognu@gmail.com where it gives following information: repo slackbuilds srcname network/opera-developer visiblename network/opera-developer version 74.0.3890.0 maintainers edps.mundognu@gmail.com downloads https://download1.operacdn.com/pub/opera-developer/74.0.3890.0/linux/opera-developer_74.0.3890.0_amd64.deb www https://www.opera.com/ categories network status ignored origversion - And in such information there is hyperlink on how to download non-free software. Nothing says if software is free or not. This is becuse SlackBuilds unethical repository probably does not provide license information on software they package, including proprietary software. If however, user clocks on the entry like this: nixpkgs unstable opera 68.0.3618.63 - fallback-mnt-nix@repology then one can get some information as the nixpkgs unethical repository, does provide information that they are distributing proprietary software, they mention it as "Unfree": repo nix_unstable name opera visiblename opera version 68.0.3618.63 maintainers fallback-mnt-nix@repology licenses Unfree www https://www.opera.com/ summary Web browser status outdated origversion - Other unethical repository like Solus would spit out result by repology.el like this: repo solus srcname opera-stable binname opera-stable visiblename opera-stable version 73.0.3856.329 maintainers harveydevel@gmail.com licenses Distributable www https://www.opera.com/ summary The Opera browser brings you more speed, more discoveries and more safety on the web - all for free categories network.web.browser status newest origversion - "Distributable" is vague and does not say really what license it is, but I do ensure you that Opera is proprietary software. And so on, and so on. By putting repology.el into GNU ELPA, GNU software like Emacs will become a good reference to unethical software repositories promoting among proprietary software. > > It is matter of freedom and liberty and > > teaching people free software and not religion. > I didn't said that GNU teaches people about religion. I said you are > religious dogmatic about software. Who I am, or how I am is not subject of this. I do need to conform to yours or anybody's standards or classes of society. Subject is the Emacs package repology.el and if inclusion into GN ELPA is aligned with GNU purposes. I am free software user and cannot recommend any proprietary software to any party, so I do not recommend that GNU Emacs in official GNU repository becomes a platform to promote proprietary software packages. And I can hardly understand why you promote such view point. People reading this mailing list shall know that GNU Emacs is about free software. Attempt to promote proprietary software by including repology.el in GNU ELPA is confusing free software users reading this mailing list. So if you wish to promote proprietary software just find some other platform, but not GNU.org. You could for example open up your website and open up your own ELPA repository and include repology.el and provide access to references on proprietary software. It would be less typing then what we discuss here. I do think that attempt to include the repology.el is the attempt to make better advertising for the unethical website repology.org Jean