> From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 13:18:35 -0500 > > > The GNU project doesn't want to give non-free software the remote > > changes of success, so mentioning or linking to it unless it is > > very well known would be working against its own goals. > > So you are basically saying that no GNU package can ever help me > find out information about potentially non-free software? > > Why should a GNU project ever give any legitimacy to a (specifically, > unknown) non-free software program? E.g., by listing information > about it or linking to it.
I explained why. You elided that. I guess you are unwilling to engage in a serious discussion of a practical problem. Oh well. > I see no problem here, either: repology.org doesn't promote or > legitimize any of the packages whose information it records. > > It does so by listing (describing) them; that legitimizes the non-free > programs. You are saying those programs are breaking the law? > Maybe we should continue this discussion on another, more suitable > GNU list. > > When I remeber, I try to replace emacs-devel@ -- but sometimes one > forgets. I've replaced emacs-devel@ with emacs-tangents@; maybe some > other list might be more appropriate? I see no reason to continue, since you basically ignore all the substance. I presented a practical problem, and you instead chose to respond on an abstract philosophical level. Sorry, not interested.
