Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> [2021-01-06 23:36]:
> > 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. 
> Ok. Fair enough; as long as you don't demand other people to live up to
> your standards. I am affraid by stigmatizing people for running some
> software you are actually indirectly demanding them to live up to your
> standards. (btw - I think you ment "I do not need ..." :-))

I am sending this to Emacs tangents, as I do not think it is related
to package repology.el

Every free software out there tells people something about liberty. It
does not demand people to accept it. It teaches people and let them
make their own choices.

For many free software users there is no alternative, so that is the
only standard in the sense you mention it. If it cannot be reached
easily it may be reached step by step.

> I am not promoting non-free software, but I am very pragmatic person. As
> a curiosa, about me, I even went in a political party to promote
> actually free software; because I thought we could save A LOTS of
> taxpayers money in the long run, and could make the world a better place
> if we invested in free software isntead of sending money out of the
> contrey to Microsoft or Apple or other big tech Co:s.

Great. And yet, free software is not money related. Example is NASA
and US government that pays much money to produce free software. It is
liberty related, not money. Producing free software may cost just
equally as producing proprietary, I do not see difference
there. Somebody does have to put their efforts, money, time, to
program free software.

The difference with expenses comes with liberty to distribute it
without paying new license fees.

> However dogmaticism and stigmaticism has never proven to be useful in
> the long run. On contrary it is unproductive and potentially harmful. It
> holds for every aspect of human life.

I see nothing dogmatic neigher stigmatic about free software
philosophy and so I cannot relate to those statements. And I cannot
comprehend what you mean with "unproductive" and "potentially
harmful".

Maybe your statement is not related to free software, but if it is, I
do not hold opinion that it is unproductive and potentially harmful,
neither that promotion of free software is such.

There is no general rule "for every aspect of human life" and if there
would be one to discuss, maybe on some other mailing list or privately.

> As a curiosa, I wonder what do you think, how much of medical software
> that powers life-holding machines in hospitals is *Free*?

Majority is probably proprietary. Terrible condition.

> Should we erase all those chips and hardrives?

We as a group of people on Emacs Devel mailing list, or who as "we"? I
have no idea what you think with "we". This is maybe because I speak
practically, always with practical ideas in mind. So I cannot relate
to it.

I can say that in Tanzania I have been promoting GNU Health, but it
did not reach right people yet. We will reach. I can also say that
practically and personally I have offered GNU Health and other
hospital/privacy management software to those pharmacies I have
personally met, they are very interested in adoption and we are still
in conversation.

So, in general terms, I think practically on how to change what I can
change. That is not a demand, that is enlightenment about free
software and helping people to switch.

> What do you think about *that* unethical software?

If proprietary software is used in health industry it is highly unethical.

> Do we have alternative?

There is no alternative to freedom.

Alternative
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative

> I really wish nobody ever gets into a respiratory machine, but those
> that end up there are probably thankful for whatever software runs
> it.

That is general statement. Generally answered, the opposite can be as
well said, I would not like to be put on a machine where nobody was
able to inspect the source code, verify it for safety and eventually
improve it, or include collaborators to include it.

Terrible idea. 

> Is it unethical to not jump in a lake and save a drowbing persons
> life if you can't swim?

That is so much tangent, hypothetical question that is not related to
free software. In my opinion ethics is personal issue, moral is social
issue. For me personally, if I could save somebody, I would jump or
call other people to jointly help. If I cannot swim, I would say it
would be unethical to try to save such person.

All that is not related to the subject.

> Pesonally, I wish we had only free software in this world; but until we
> have, I am affraid a people in that circumstance are thankful to have
> whatever there is.

I can say I am not thankful as I find proprietary software abusive,
coercive, controlling, so I cannot be thankful for that.

Jean