emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking


From: Stephen Leake
Subject: Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 12:46:07 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (windows-nt)

Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

+1.

I think we should encourage people to move away from Github, for both
GNU and non-GNU ELPA.

Given that many ELPA packages are now on Github, we could have a
transition policy, with enforceable deadlines (ie, remove package from
*GNU ELPA if still on gitub after deadline). However, I doubt that the
Emacs project is capable of such a thing, or that we want to be.

So we are left with naming and shaming; in list-packages, show the
upstream repository along with the license and other info on a package,
and show unacceptable ones in red. That could still be a lot of effort
to categorize obscure hosts.

Disclaimer; my packages are hosted on Savannah, so any resolution of this
will have no direct impact on me.

-- 
-- Stephe



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]