Stefan, GNU/FSF is first a political/philosophical organisation before
being a technical/software organization. The fact that they've managed to
construct such an amazing piece of software, Emacs, is a miracle, but
secondary to that primary characteristics.

And don't be mistaken, that comes with advantages too. As a non-profit
organisation, driven by philosophy, you can rest assured that emacs will be
here essently forever while sublime text, visual studio code, and others
will come and go.

Mike Gerwitz, back to the topic, you've posted an issue on the github site,
which is run with non-free software, and I'm pretty sure that it runs
non-free javascript. The fact that you will be running "non-free"
javascript seems a bit unescapeable, doesn't it?

(I'm not trying to pick an argument, just trying to understand the
philosophy)



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Stefan Reichör <stefan@xsteve.at> wrote:

> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 21:53:27 -0500 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> I went to Docker Hub, turned off JS, and was able to use the settings
> >>> dialogs necessary to maintain the "gnuemacs" account going forward.
> >>> Account creation also seemed to work.
> >
> > RS> That's sounds favorable.  But could you please compare notes with
> Mike
> > RS> Gurwitz about what does or doesn't require nonfree JS code?  You and
> > RS> he are getting different results; the anomaly is troubling.
> >
> > Unfortunately I was rushed and meant to write "organization account
> > creation" within an existing Docker Hub user account (you need one to
> > create an organization). I did not test creating the user account. But I
> > don't think any of that will make a difference.
> >
> > At this point I've lost interest and will not continue this work. I
> > don't see a way to reconcile your positions with my reality, and can't
> > change either.
> >
> > RS> Please don't try to push us to "move on" without establishing
> > RS> the facts of the situation clearly.
> >
> > I think we can move on with other things now.
> >
>
> As a happy emacs user I am sad to see another good idea that helps to
> increase the visibility of emacs is shot down by this oh so important
> free software argument.
>
> For me it is the same thing that happened to the proposed improvements
> in intellisense behaviour. Richard wanted to talk to a lawyer about
> this. And nothing happened. The person that wanted to implement this
> stuff just resigned.
>
> Stefan.
>
>
>