Re: Emacs packages, GitHub and software freedom

["Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev>]

[-- 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 --]