From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: splash-screen Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:20:48 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87d02ej7bq.fsf@gnus.org> <874knoekki.fsf@gnus.org> <87mu1fb8kb.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39680"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, nicolas.rougier@inria.fr, Dmitry Gutov To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 27 18:22:48 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kMZRo-000AE2-13 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:22:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58892 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kMZRn-0005uS-1M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:22:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34028) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kMZQ7-00057t-2r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:21:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:8624) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kMZQ4-0002iK-NS; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:21:02 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 007F280300; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ED88C80739; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:20:49 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1601223649; bh=fzKRVqpKj7OxmVa70pg59QQzHRPka2da1CqDvgWFEBw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jSpxF80LEbVj2f8Z48dp0rj+tZK+XCszjKNImLpXOXyxQI293gSaUe8Ml+AVCJ7+X XvCLlbjZgHlSbzE0lkP177bNhxKrW+1aqBxwG7wQT5jnMA4qnltw7dRj4QBo4bN9rr K7wybjejOzuREqlW8cmnng+9MH2NxBzLttl716415r+rPLQCBlkqbRNqMBdvLOc4Cq 7HZzhWqDtCCMpv7eoHhBxafFU2xTVEFty0qV52+I9KwtIwHtl2BjWyneWDrMemdqbh +b/yLm60GTAGs1JfpLMn/8SVJMHEnQQgVjm8G7pbYSMI/dS2bQ3Dso9DRwkWtt0mXh iD4VuWrLXd85A== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.72.232.131]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6876A1203E4; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:20:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sat, 26 Sep 2020 22:45:42 -0400") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/27 11:46:31 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:256546 Archived-At: > Those are opinions, but they are not a rational reason. They may not be rational reasons to remove the text, but they are very much rational reasons to take a fresh new look at the reasons for the presence of this text. > These lines are important; So you say, but apparently all other Free Software projects disagree. And while proprietary software does show similar text it's dutifully downed within the many lines of text of the EULA that the corporation hopes you'll never read, whereas you seem to think we should make special efforts to make sure the reader reads it. This seems to indicate that even proprietary software's corporations also disagree. So is it really that important? And if so, why does everyone else seem to disagree? > to delete them would require an important reason, and so far no one > has shown me any reason, only opinions. It doesn't have to be a super-important reason, as long as it's more important than the reason to have those lines there, which also boils down to an opinion. I do think it's important to have such a text somewhere, but AFAICT it's perfectly sufficient to have it in the license's text. Stefan