bug#59609: 29.0.50; [PATCH] Better advertise (Non-)GNU ELPA in emacs manual

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > > Only because we decide not to do that, or are lazy, or whatever.
  > > Basically, it's our decision for GNU ELPA, and not so for NonGNU ELPA.

  > We have just as much control in one as in the other, in practice.

Does "have" here stand for "exercise"?  I think so.

With GNU ELPA packages, in principle we can make the changes we wish.
However, for several reasons, we normally let the package developers
alone, except when there is an important reason to do otherwise, which
is rare.  When it makes sense for them to work independently, it is
better that they do.

It's the same for packages in core Emacs, those that have specific
developers.  We likewise let them do their work on their own as much
as possible.

However, it's different for NonGNU ELPA packages.  We would not want
to do more on them than fix small instances of bit-rot or simple
failures to fit into Emacs, even if the package becomes unmaintained.
Beyond that is not our responsibility.

If in practice we get involved in most of the packages that are part
of Emacs so rarely that it doesn't look very different from NonGNU
ELPA, that means we are doing well -- but that doesn't change the fact
that those categories are different in principle.


-- 
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)