Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking

[Thibaut Verron]

Le sam. 12 déc. 2020 à 07:37, Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Bottom line is that if packages in non-GNU ELPA are hosted on Github, like it 
> or not, you are encouraging the use of Github. Yes, there are many Github 
> features you can access from the command line and via other means, like 
> commenting on issues via email, but these other mechanisms typically take 
> more effort and are not as convenient (and have limitations - you cannot use 
> markup when commenting on issues via email for example).
>
> The non-GNU ELPA is supposed to be a repository for packages which are GPL 
> compliant and it is a reasonable expectation that those who make their 
> packages GPL compliant do so because they support the philosophical goals of 
> the FSF.

GPL licensing is what's the default elisp auto-insert inserts. And
apparently it's not even clear if it is legal to license packages
under any incompatible license.

I wouldn't read a statement of support in the mere fact that a package
if GPL compliant.

I also recall a discussion where some developers were worried that
assigning a copyright to the FSF was an official statement of
philosophical support, and that it was a statement they were not
willing to make. The official answer was that there is no such
statement in the copyright.

> Therefore, I don't think it is too much to ask that they also have those 
> packages hosted on a platform which also supports these same philosophical 
> goals. As I understand it, non-GNU ELPA is not supposed to be a repository 
> for all other packages where the author doe snot want to assign copyright to 
> the FSF. It is supposed to be for all other GPL compliant packages where the 
> author does not want to assign copyright to the FSF.

Or can't. In a lot of cases it turns out that contacting all
contributors to obtain copyright assignment is a difficult task, or
that some contributors are not legally allowed to transfer their
copyright.

> I think a mandatory requirement should simply be that any packages which go 
> into non-GNU ELPA are hosted on an approved platform. We could point to a 
> list of such hosting providers e.g. 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html and say Grade C or 
> better only. .

There is no such requirement for GNU ELPA at the moment.

> This will also have the added incentive of encouraging better hosting 
> options. It might even encourage GitLab for example, to enhance their 
> environment to meet Class B.

Couldn't it just as well be an occasion to encourage Github to improve?

> Many people have selected Github for hosting simply because it was the best 
> known solution. With a little encouragement, they would probably be willing 
> to move to at least GitLab, which offers many of the similar convenience 
> features of Github.  Being able to host your package in non-GNU ELPA might be 
> that encouragement.

There is a lot of inertia involved in relocating a package with
hundreds of contributors.

I agree that some of the difficulties posed by copyright assignment do
not apply for relocation (e.g. that one contributor 7 years ago whom
nobody can contact), but there is an effort involved in both.