> From: Richard Stallman <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 01:41:30 -0500 > > > If you are making an emphasis on never mentioning "wrong" programs, you > > make a conscious choice toward ignoring them, as opposed to studying > > them and overtaking them. > > Of course. We intentionally, specifically, avoid mentioning obscure > nonfree programs as options to be used.
Providing information about a program is not "using" that program. > (We may mention them to condemn them.) So there _are_ situations where mentioning such packages is okay. repology.org is a site that would allow us do that, by providing the information we need to use for the decision of whether they should or shouldn't be condemned. Therefore, I conclude that repology.org does a job that is useful for us, and we shouldn't refrain from using that site, definitely not as a dogmatic postulate some people here presented.
