From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Cross Subject: Re: BeOrg Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:26:07 +1100 Message-ID: <87zi5v8i1s.fsf@gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33607) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eWeNL-0007Fw-Rg for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 03:26:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eWeNK-0006Uw-M5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 03:26:15 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::230]:39060) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eWeNK-0006UB-EO for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 03:26:14 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l24so488063pfj.6 for ; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:26:14 -0800 (PST) In-reply-to: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Ilya Shlyakhter Cc: emacs-orgmode Bottom line is that referencing this software in the org manual would contravene the GNU guidelines and underlying philosophy of the GPL. While you will find references to non-GPL software/platforms, these are not references which promote non-free solutions, but references in support of adopting free solutions on non-free platforms. One of the biggest threats to software freedom and a significant issue for the FSF is the attractive lure of convenience. I feel it would be a mistake to ignore the guidelines in favour of promoting a non-free solution on the basis it would be beneficial to users. The FSF and GPL are built on a clear philosophy of supporting and promoting software freedom and to sacrifice those principals because there is only a non-free solution to satisfy a need is short sighted and contradictory. It appears the software is actually free to download and has an 'in app' donation request. It also appears the software makes extensive use of other 3rd party libraries. This makes me wonder if it would be reasonable to contact the author and ask if they would be prepared to change the license to an acceptable open source one. This would not prevent them from continuing to request donations and would then enable Org to reference the software on the org site and in the manual, which would in turn likely increase app visibility and lead to more donations to the author. This could be a win for everyone, including the author. Of course, the other question to ask is "If beorg is so much better than available open source equivalents, such as mobileOrg, how has one individual been able to do that when the org community cannot?" Tim Ilya Shlyakhter writes: > The org features page at https://orgmode.org/features.html, and the > Org manual, mention MobileOrg, but not the newer BeOrg app > ( http://beorgapp.com/ ). Maybe add a reference to it? -- Tim Cross