[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> I've created a new package called llm, for the purpose of abstracting the
> interface to various large language model providers.
Note that packages in core Emacs or in GNU ELPA
should not depend on anything in NonGNU ELPA.
If llm is meant for other packages to use,
it should be in GNU ELPA, not NonGNU ELPA.
Why did you plan to put it in NonGNU ELPA?
The logic was the same logic you quote below (I'll explain better what my point was below), but I agree that it would limit the use, so GNU ELPA makes more sense. Another factor was that I am using request.el, which is not in GNU ELPA, so I'd have to rewrite it, which complicates the code.
> I prefer that this is NonGNU, because I suspect people would like to
> contribute interfaces to different LLM, and not all of them will have FSF
> papers.
I don't follow the logic here. It looks like the llm package is
intended to be generic, so it would be used by other packages to
implementr support for specific models. If llm package is on GNU ELPA,
it can be used from packages no matter how those packages are distributed.
It wasn't about use, it's more about accepting significant code contributions, which is less restricted with NonGNU ELPA, since I wouldn't have to ask for FSF papers.
But if the llm package is in NonGNU ELPA, it can only be used from packages
in NonGNU ELPA.
Have I misunderstood the intended design?
You understood correctly. This is a package designed to be used as a library from other packages.
--
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)