Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes: > Björn Bidar <bjorn.bidar@thaodan.de> writes: > >> I translate this my self: Yes both sources contain only free software, >> but both contain software that interacts with non-free software. > > I believe that Stefan explained this, in distinguishing between software > that you have to run on your own system and a fixed service that runs on > non-free software. A web browser is not at fault when requesting a > website from a non-free web server. What if the software only implements non-free standards such as Exchange? >> Anyway you don't have to write in German just for me, it's fine. > > Ok. > >>> What do you have in mind specifically when you say "modern"? >>> >>> The Guix people have been using a separate different front end that >>> /looks/ more modern, that still is debbugs AFAIK: >>> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/, and the source code is here: >>> https://git.elephly.net/gitweb.cgi?p=software/mumi.git. >> >> Yes something like your example, a ui that allows contribution without >> email and looks more modern. Both debbugs and the mailman2 that used by >> Gnu also doesn't scale/look good on high dpi screens. >> Mailman2 is EOL in any case. > > Then it might be worth convincing whoever is responsible to try setting > up mumi. There has also been the discussion of moving to SourceHut, > which should also fix the issues you have. ok. For me anything is fine but I there are others. >>> Richard went into that issue in a parallel thread just yesterday: >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-11/msg00792.html: >>> >>> Our general policy makes a subtle distinction between these two >>> cases: >>> >>> 1. If a nonfree program FOO is not well known, we don't even >>> mention that >>> it exists. Because we don't want to promote using FOO. >>> >>> 2. If a nonfree program FOO is well known and widely used, >>> something to >>> help and encourage FOO's users to use some GNU packages along with >>> FOO >>> is good. >>> >>> 3. Anything that would encourage the existing users of some GNU >>> packages >>> to use FOO with them is bad. >> >> OK I don't see anything against cooperating with Gnu in Melpa, the only >> difference is the barrier of entry for packages that interact with >> non-free systems, especially the amount of questioning that a package >> has go too but that is subjective I think. > > Are you saying that GNU ELPA or MELPA go through more "questioning"? I'm saying that packages that interface with non-free formats or systems have less questioning in Melpa. In Elpa a package has to justify why it should be added when it interfaces with non-free systems. Br, Björn
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4