Re: PL support

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >    Our unwillingness to make Free Software packages like Magit or Tuareg
   >    easily installable into Emacs with no extra configuration forces many
   >    of our users to add MELPA to their `package-archives`.
   >
   > I'm sure that Magit or Tuareg are most welcome to be part of Emacs if
   > the the needed paper work is done.  
   >
   > An idea maybe e.g., Magit could join as a a GNU project, and followed
   > the needed rules for a GNU project but without copyright assignments
   > to the FSF.  Then Magit could be listed in the package-archives list.
   > It would not be part of Emacs, but it would safeguard the situation of
   > not falling into a trap of recommending non-free software, etc.
   >
   > The unwillingness you speak of is falling into a trap of recommending
   > things that the GNU project is activley working against -- non-free
   > software.  Not an unwillingness to add things.

   Just like RMS you conflate "hasn't signed copyright paperwork and is not
   interested in following our coding rules" with "things that the GNU
   project is activley working against -- non-free software".

I do not think I have and I do not think RMS did so either.  You are
raising a tanget and not addressing the point I was trying to make.

It shouldn't be a suprise that if something is part of Emacs, the same
rules should apply -- whatever those are for that specific project.
You've are suggesting that Emacs should neglect to follow its own
rules.  

I suggested how a package (it could also be as some have suggested a
non(?)-GNU not-part-of-EmacsLPA repository) could be made easily
installable which was part of your goal, but still able to follow its
own technical guidelines and still be acceptable to be directly
recommend since it would follow the overall guideline of the GNU
project in rejecting non-free software.

That is assuming that the e.g. Magit developers want their software to
be part of Emacs.

The most impotant goal of GNU Emacs and the GNU project is that of
free software.  So if there is something that would work against those
goals even slightly it will be rejected -- you called this an
unwillingness, but it is a matter of upholding the project mission and
goals.

   You're describing as enemies people who simply want to write their Free
   Software under a different set of rules.  That ends up playing in the
   hands of those who really don't care about Free Software.

Sorry, but that is a immense misintepretation of what I wrote, and I
think you are quite aware of that.  Nobody is describing anyone as an
enemy.