Re: Contradictiory directions

[Po Lu]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> I'm not talking about dynamic Emacs modules.  I'm talking about basic
> libraries.  We can't check whether whatever libraries we're loading,
> whether it's libc.so or libsrvg.so or whatever, aren't proprietary
> variations on the libraries we're expecting.

These are system libraries, all of which are either free or have free
replacements.  I don't think we allow features that depend on
proprietary libraries that have no free replacement.  And to distribute
a binary of Emacs that links against a non-free non-system library would
be illegal.

>> So it seems to be terminology specific to mh-e, with no reason to
>> warrant its adoption throughout Emacs.
>
> The reason is that the world has moved on to the new terms.

It certainly hasn't: this was the first time I ever came across the term
"allowlist" being used, and it was in the form of an email, not code.

Even if the world has "moved on" (which is hardly a given), software
(Emacs even more so) has historically used the "old" terms, which there
is no need to change.  So as I said, can we please keep the situation
simple by using the terminology which we have always used, which is to
say, "blacklist" and "whitelist".