From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ilya Shlyakhter Subject: Re: BeOrg Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:43:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87k1x0gnyi.fsf@gmail.com> <877et0m5im.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87373om1p9.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1514931452.4092041.1222235240.37A13EBE@webmail.messagingengine.com> <87mv1vitmf.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36027) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eWZ22-0002NM-6D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2018 21:43:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eWZ1y-0006S4-8R for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2018 21:43:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87mv1vitmf.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ian Dunn Cc: emacs-orgmode , Peter Davis "as a GNU package, we're not allowed to mention proprietary software" -- how is that consistent with GNU prominently distributing Emacs for Windows from its own website? I think this shows that the guideline is not absolute. And it's specifically phrased as a guideline ("should"), not as a requirement. To _mention_ is not the same as to _endorse_. One can mention a non-free program, along with a link to GNU's reasoning against such programs, and let users decide. Deciding for them is paternalistic. It also looks like simple protectionism: rather than writing a free program superior to the non-free one, mentioning both and letting users decide, we'll just hide the non-free one. I don't see why not to write beOrg at all is perfectly ethical, but to write it without making it free is unethical. What freedoms does a non-existing program give users? On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Ian Dunn wrote: >>>>>> "Peter" =3D=3D Peter Davis writes: > > Peter> If we refuse to provide useful information just because it > Peter> violates some purist idea of what is or is not acceptably > Peter> unencumbered, then we=E2=80=99re just denying users potential = helpful > Peter> capabilities that may make the difference between using > Peter> org-mode or abandoning it completely in favor of some > Peter> commercial, cross-platform solution. > > Nicolas mentioned that as a GNU package, we're not allowed to mention > proprietary software[1]. My understanding is that the reasoning behind > this is that we don't want to appear to endorse proprietary software. > The GNU project finds proprietary software unethical, so they will not > see it as providing useful information, but endorsing an unethical > solution. > > Peter, I understand your reasoning; the LGPL was designed specifically > for this purpose, i.e. allowing a non-free solution built upon a free > one. However, I don't believe we should encourage use of such solutions > without evidence that people are turned away from Org mode because of a > mobile solution they don't like. > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html#Referenc= es > > -- > Ian Dunn