BeOrg

BeOrg

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

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?

Re: BeOrg

[Eric S Fraga]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 359 bytes --]

On Tuesday,  2 Jan 2018 at 12:32, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> 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?

This may be because the app is not open source?

-- 
Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50, Org release_9.1.6

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: BeOrg

[ilya shlyakhter]

>This may be because the app is not open source?

Neither is iOS or MATLAB, and yet the Org manual mentions both.

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Eric S Fraga <esflists@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday,  2 Jan 2018 at 12:32, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
>> 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?
>
> This may be because the app is not open source?
>
> --
> Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50, Org release_9.1.6

Re: BeOrg

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

ilya shlyakhter <ilya239@gmail.com> writes:

> Neither is iOS or MATLAB, and yet the Org manual mentions both.

We have good reasons for that. The former is because MobileOrg, which
uses "org-mobile.el", provided by Org, and therefore, documented. The
latter is because "ob-matab.el", which is free software.

OTOH, as GNU software, we should not suggest to use non-free software.
Besides, it is not related to any library in our source code.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: BeOrg

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

>as GNU software, we should not suggest to use non-free software

But, clearly, we already do: suggesting to use MobileOrg necessarily
suggests to use iOS.

Besides, some of the main critiques of non-free software do not apply
here: e.g. beorg doesn't lock the user into some proprietary format.
And while it may be unethical to lure unsophisticated computer users
into freedom-relinquishing decisions the consequences of which they
may not fully grasp, most Org users are sophisticated enough to make
an intelligent and informed choice.

GNU itself distributes Emacs for Windows from its main site (
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/ ), so there's a balance of
considerations.  I think here the balance tips in favor of mentioning
beOrg.  I've tried MobileOrg and gave up on it, while beOrg is more
usable; judging by the reviews, others had a similar impression.


On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> ilya shlyakhter <ilya239@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Neither is iOS or MATLAB, and yet the Org manual mentions both.
>
> We have good reasons for that. The former is because MobileOrg, which
> uses "org-mobile.el", provided by Org, and therefore, documented. The
> latter is because "ob-matab.el", which is free software.
>
> OTOH, as GNU software, we should not suggest to use non-free software.
> Besides, it is not related to any library in our source code.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou

Re: BeOrg

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Ilya Shlyakhter <ilya_shl@alum.mit.edu> writes:

>>as GNU software, we should not suggest to use non-free software
>
> But, clearly, we already do: suggesting to use MobileOrg necessarily
> suggests to use iOS.
>
> Besides, some of the main critiques of non-free software do not apply
> here: e.g. beorg doesn't lock the user into some proprietary format.

I think you are missing the point. Free software is primarily about
source code (the four definitions). Vendor lock-in is but one of the
possible consequences of non-free software. It's still non-free.

> And while it may be unethical to lure unsophisticated computer users
> into freedom-relinquishing decisions the consequences of which they
> may not fully grasp, most Org users are sophisticated enough to make
> an intelligent and informed choice.

Straw man argument.

> GNU itself distributes Emacs for Windows from its main site (
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/ ), so there's a balance of
> considerations.  I think here the balance tips in favor of mentioning
> beOrg.  I've tried MobileOrg and gave up on it, while beOrg is more
> usable; judging by the reviews, others had a similar impression.

beOrg may be technically superior, yet usability has never been
a criterion.

Really there's no balance at all: this software doesn't use any of our
libraries and doesn't share our goals. I'm happy someone developed such
software, really, but the way it was done saddens me. If you think that
is worth the shot, you may want to convince its author to turn beOrg
into free software (is that even possible on the Apple store?).

In any case, you may want to discuss this further on gnu-misc-discuss
mailing list, or possibly emacs-devel. For the time being, as far as Org
is concerned, I stand on my ground: there is no reason to reference it
in the manual.

Re: BeOrg

[Peter Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 880 bytes --]


On Tue, Jan 2, 2018, at 3:43 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> I think you are missing the point. Free software is primarily about
> source code (the four definitions).

I’m not well versed in the theories and arguments for or against free or
open source software. However, based on my 40 years of experience as a
software developer and UI designer, I would say ALL software, free or
otherwise, is about usability and usefulness. Otherwise, there’s no
reason for that software to exist.
If we refuse to provide useful information just because it violates some
purist idea of what is or is not acceptably unencumbered, then we’re
just denying users potential helpful capabilities that may make the
difference between using org-mode or abandoning it completely in favor
of some commercial, cross-platform solution.
--
  Peter Davis
  www.techcurmudgeon.com


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1633 bytes --]

Re: BeOrg

[Thomas S. Dye]

Aloha all
Peter Davis writes:

> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018, at 3:43 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>>
>> I think you are missing the point. Free software is primarily 
>> about
>> source code (the four definitions).

> If we refuse to provide useful information just because it 
> violates some
> purist idea of what is or is not acceptably unencumbered, then 
> we’re
> just denying users potential helpful capabilities that may make 
> the
> difference between using org-mode or abandoning it completely in 
> favor
> of some commercial, cross-platform solution.

IIUC, the question is about where to provide this information, not 
whether or not to provide it.  OP asked about putting it in the 
Org manual and Nicolas has pointed out that the manual is for 
documenting Org software.

Perhaps Worg is a better place to provide information about BeOrg?

hth,
Tom

--
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: BeOrg

[Ian Dunn]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Davis <pfd@pfdstudio.com> 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’re 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#References

-- 
Ian Dunn

Re: BeOrg

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

"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 <dunni@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Davis <pfd@pfdstudio.com> 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’re 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#References
>
> --
> Ian Dunn

Re: BeOrg

[Scott Randby]

On 01/02/2018 09:43 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> "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.
> 

Emacs for Windows is still free software with source code and everything. BeOrg is not free software.

Scott Randby

Re: BeOrg

[Tim Cross]

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 <ilya_shl@alum.mit.edu> 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

Re: BeOrg

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

Morever, considering the availability only in Apple's App Store, how
will users exercise freedom 1, which also includes the freedom to reuse
the adaptation in the same environment/device? This "retake' of freedom
0 in freedom 1 is also mentioned in [1].

Currently:

- BeOrg doesn't seem to be "open source" (according to the Open Source
  Initiative's Definition, see [2]), unless of course we're missing
  something and the full license text, copyright notice, license notice
  and complete corresponding source are referenced/mentioned or
  distributed when the app is used, which I see as unlikely;

- doesn't seem to be free/libre either, because it depends on a package
  manager which has no easy way to completely manage trusted signatures
  understood by such package manager and requires installation only of
  signed packages (this last requirement isn't bad, but the absense of
  the trust management feature makes it worse). This is somewhat
  analogous to the situation found in almost all manufacturer-provided
  smartphones with Android and bootloaders preinstalled, besides this,
  iThings also come with Restricted Boot (not to be confused with Secure
  Boot or with EFI/UEFI, for the differences see [3]).

[1] <http://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/rms.webm>. First audio track has original
speech in English, second one has translation in Brazilian
Portuguese. However this nete is only accurate for the speech, because
the intermediate audio language is somewhat mixed.

[2] <https://opensource.org/osd>.

[3] <https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libby/m/embracing-secure-boot-and-rejecting-restricted-boot-matthew-garrett/>.

2018-01-03T19:26:07+1100 Tim Cross wrote:
> 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 <ilya_shl@alum.mit.edu> 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

-- 
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
  instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.

Re: BeOrg

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

+1

2018-01-03T00:00:01-0500 Scott Randby wrote:
> Emacs for Windows is still free software with source code and
> everything. BeOrg is not free software.
>
> Scott Randby

Re: BeOrg

[edgar]

I am going to keep the thread just in case I ever need it. It's great! I 
have refrained myself from expressing my humble opinion for fear of a 
flame war, but...

"What's the point of a software which doesn't exist?" you say.

"What is the point of chaining people?" I would say.


Cheers!

-------------------------------------------------

ONLY AT VFEmail! - Use our Metadata Mitigator to keep your email out of the NSA's hands!
$24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!  
15GB disk! No bandwidth quotas!
Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!