Re: Contradictiory directions

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> These are system libraries, all of which are either free or have free
> replacements.  I don't think we allow features that depend on
> proprietary libraries that have no free replacement.

We don't link against such libraries, but there's nothing we can do to
disallow a user from doing so.  Fortunately.

> And to distribute a binary of Emacs that links against a non-free
> non-system library would be illegal.

Distribution is a whole nother kettle of fish.

> Even if the world has "moved on" (which is hardly a given), software
> (Emacs even more so) has historically used the "old" terms, which there
> is no need to change.  So as I said, can we please keep the situation
> simple by using the terminology which we have always used, which is to
> say, "blacklist" and "whitelist".

Sorry, no.  And I find it pretty odd to quibble about
allowlist/blocklist -- they're clearly better terms than the vague
whitelist/blacklist terms.  They're self explanatory terms, while the
old ones were jargon you had to learn.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no