Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking

[Jean Louis]

* Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> [2020-12-12 18:37]:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 00:50, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> wrote:
> 
> > > The non-GNU ELPA is supposed to be a repository for packages which are
> > GPL
> > > compliant and it is a reasonable expectation that those who make their
> > > packages GPL compliant do so because they support the philosophical goals
> > > of the FSF.
> >
> > The overwhelming majority of ELisp packages out there are hosted on
> > Github (that also applies to many GNU ELPA packages, many of them are
> > developed by long time contributors to Emacs), so I think the evidence
> > shows the above expectation doesn't hold at all.
> >
> > Maybe. However, it could also be a combination of the fact github was the
> first free git hosting environment and is the better known one. Just
> because it is this way now doesn't mean it has to be. If the GNU/FSF
> doesn't take a clear position on this and do something to discourage the
> use of hosting environments that force the use of proprietary software,
> this will not change and eventually all we will have are the proprietary
> solutions. It may not have been the right decision to allow code which has
> assigned copyright to the FSF to remain on Github. However, as non-GNU ELPA
> is just getting started, now would be a good time to try and change
> things.

Exactly.

> I'm also not convinced about arguments suggesting too much inertia or too
> much hassle in moving to a new hosting platform.

That IS the goal of Github to make people become very dependent that
they cannot switch. Using that argument is advertising the Github
indirectly. Every code hosting platform shall not make developers and
software development dependent on it. Github does exactly that with
its proprietary applications served for developers.

> There are few technical barriers to moving git repositories to a new
> hosting platform. However, there has to be some incentive to do so.
> It also seems inconsistent to have so many packages, both GNU ELPA
> and non-GNU ELPA packages hosted on a platform which is so far from
> being acceptable from a FSF philosophical perspective. Makes it feel
> like the FSF fails to eat their own dog food.

Exactly.