Re: Concrete suggestions to improve Org mode third-party integration :: an afterthought following Karl Voit's Orgdown proposal

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

> I think your working off a false premise. Your view is that org mode
> should be available in other editors/software so that others can realise
> the power and benefits it provides. I can understand that position.

A clarification: my premise is that org mode should be available in
other _free_ editors/software. If we provide the means for other free
software to support Org mode (either as markup format or as some subset
of Elist implementation), it will benefit software freedom in general.
Whatever helper information (think of tests) we provide, it should be
licensed under GPLv3 with the following effect:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
>> It's always possible to use GPLed code to write software that
>> implements DRM. However, if someone does that with code protected by
>> GPLv3, section 3 says that the system will not count as an effective
>> technological "protection" measure. This means that if you break the
>> DRM, you'll be free to distribute your own software that does that,
>> and you won't be threatened by the DMCA or similar laws.

The fact is that e.g. Github already provides support for Org markup.
They do it for their own profit and we cannot stop them. If we have a
controlled criteria about quality of third-party Org mode support, there
will be means to interfere with non-free software attempting to makes
profits out of Org mode. For example, if Github do not integrate our
recommended test suite (with all the legal consequences defined in
GPLv3), we will be able to have a list of third-party tools and, among
free alternatives, mention that Github support for Org is not verified
and most likely not consistent with other _free_ tools. We cannot do it
now.

> However, the FSF position would be exactly the opposite. They would
> argue that orgmode is a powerful and flexible tool that is part of Emacs
> and if you want that power and flexibility, you need to use Emacs. Org
> mode has probably done more to bring new users to Emacs than any other
> Emacs mode in the last 30 years. As a consequence, you will find not
> only little support towards making it available in other editors, you
> are likely to run into active resistance. As you say, org-mode can be
> thought of as a brand name and that is a brand name owned by the FSF as
> an official GNU project and a goal of the FSF is to convert people to
> use GNU free software. Anything which has the potential to take the
> power of org mode and make it available in non-free software (not simply
> open source) is not going to be supported or welcomed.

I am very much sceptical that third-party tools can provide the level of
Org support Emacs does provide. Emacs is and will remain the most
feature-full tool for people to use Org mode. Org mode's largest power
is configurability thanks to Emacs. On the other hand, Org mode's
support would be welcome in tools like TeXMacs or in forges like
Sourcehut (currently only supporting markdown).

Best,
ihor