Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

["Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>]

   > The GNU project doesn't want to give non-free software the remote
   > changes of success, so mentioning or linking to it unless it is
   > very well known would be working against its own goals.

   So you are basically saying that no GNU package can ever help me
   find out information about potentially non-free software?

Why should a GNU project ever give any legitimacy to a (specifically,
unknown) non-free software program?  E.g., by listing information
about it or linking to it.

   You are in effect saying that no GNU package can ever help me with
   these tasks, except if I'm looking for info about a Free Software
   package, because divulging any information about a non-free package
   means "promoting" it?  That is a very strange and radical
   interpretation of "promotion", one that hurts our own cause by
   preventing me from quickly and reliably answering the above basic
   questions about any software package I ever come across.

I never used the word promote or promotion -- I'm actually avoiding it
since I think it is prone to misinterpretation.  But if we (GNU) link
to a non-free software program, we are giving that program legitimacy
to exist and effectivly saying that it is fine.

Finding various non-free programs one is already able to do, but it
isn't the task of the GNU project or a specific GNU project to make it
easier.  So I think yes, it would be strange for the GNU project, or
specific GNU projects to make it easy to find information about
non-free software -- even with big Caveat Emptor warning..

   I see no problem here, either: repology.org doesn't promote or
   legitimize any of the packages whose information it records.

It does so by listing (describing) them; that legitimizes the non-free
programs.

   Maybe we should continue this discussion on another, more suitable
   GNU list.

When I remeber, I try to replace emacs-devel@ -- but sometimes one
forgets.  I've replaced emacs-devel@ with emacs-tangents@; maybe some
other list might be more appropriate?