Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [GNU-linux-libre] programming language package manager

[Felipe Sanches]

Software Freedom is important for everybody. Not only for programmers.
Thus, a freedom that can only be easily validated by people with
programming skills is a sort of discriminatory freedom.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:38 PM, IngeGNUe <ingegnue@riseup.net> wrote:
> On 04/04/16 20:01, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote:
>>> I'm confused about why this is necessary. Why not check the license of a
>>> package before installing it? A programmer should be able to do this.
>> Since  we have  distros
>>  is endorsed by the FSF, mere warning is not enough.
>> One of the criteria for keeping the endorsed status is that
>> FSF-endorsed distros:
>>
>> "...must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for
>> practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should have no
>> repositories
>> for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of
>> particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution refer to
>> third-party repositories
>> that are not committed to only including free software; even if they
>> only have free software today, that may not be true tomorrow. Programs
>> in the system
>> should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on."
>>
>>
>> have fun and be free
>> ali miracle
>>
>> 2016-04-04 14:47 جرينتش-07:00, IngeGNUe <ingegnue@riseup.net>:
>>> On 04/03/16 18:37, Felipe Sanches wrote:
>>>> I've been concerned for a while about this as well.
>>>> Any idea if anyone has ever tried dealing with this problem already?
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ali Abdul Ghani <blade.vp2020@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Most of us use Package manager to install Programs
>>>>> in fully free gnu/linux distributions all the repositorys is free
>>>>> software
>>>>> But wait
>>>>> this seme not tru
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of programming languages have own Package Manager
>>>>> Examples of those packages managers: npm (CSS/JavaScript), Bower
>>>>> (Web), pip (Python), Ruby Gems (Ruby),
>>>>> CPAN (Perl), Cargo (Rust), ...
>>>>>
>>>>> These packages rely on special Repositorys
>>>>> Nearly all of those Repositorys accept non-free licenses. At least,
>>>>> most of those Repositorys show the license of the program, but it
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> even warn you when installing a non-free package.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and The big problem is python and Perl is part from
>>>>> fully free gnu/linux distributions
>>>>> I think this mene the distributions is not fully free gnu/linux
>>>>> distributions
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 2 solutions came in my head
>>>>> 1- remove this Package Manager from this programming languages from
>>>>> free gnu/linux distributions
>>>>>
>>>>> in fact If we're removing those package managers, it's going to make
>>>>> installing some software much harder.
>>>>> 2. Create a separate repository. In this case, we hnede  manpower to
>>>>> mirror all the free packages and remove only the non-free ones, else
>>>>> we will
>>>>> land in a situation similar to 1. we will also need a pretty Web
>>>>> interface in order to attract users.
>>>>>
>>>>> have fun and be free
>>>>> ali miracle
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Emacs is the ground. We run around and act silly on top of it, and
>>>>> when we die, may our remnants grace its ongoing incrementation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm confused about why this is necessary. Why not check the license of a
>>> package before installing it? A programmer should be able to do this.
>>>
>>> Tell me if I am wrong?
>>>
>>> If you feel like that's a good use of your time, go for it...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> Hello Ali,
>
> What I mean by that is not even a warning. A programmer is sophisticated
> enough of a user to look at the license of a package if she cares enough
> about the issue. Therefore, i find it dubious what value it adds to
> bother with this.
>
> Besides that, there should be a limit to what distros are responsible
> for; I believe that the responsibility of a distro is to distribute
> libre packages; if those libre packages then download non-libre packages
> distributed by somebody else, then the distro should not be responsible
> for that. I think that's the only sane option because otherwise y'all
> gettin way too meta.
>
> IMHO
>