Re: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey

[Jean Louis]

It is good to develop verified, safe, separate repository at
elpa.nongnu.org that would be included in Emacs as default, so that
people can get the safe, verified packages from repository that takes
care of users and help them understand freedom issues.

For MELPA warning it is good to be specific, as if there is some
wrapped proprietary software on MELPA, then let us find out which
software it is, and one can make a list, or even ask MELPA not to
include such.

Which one it is exactly?

The list of packages that wrap proprietary software would be anyway
required, if GNU wish to publish elpa.nongnu.org

Above is based on below.

* Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> [2020-10-13 06:53]:
> Some Emacs users have though about this but were not convinced, and
> then they probably dropped the question from their thoughts.  If we
> treat MELPA as if it were as legitimate as the free archives, they
> will be encouraged in considering it as legitimate as the free
> archives.
> 
> Perhaps we should do something to show them what the issue is.
> Perhaps with text like this:
> 
> ======================================================================
> GNU Emacs is part of the GNU operating system.  The GNU Project aims
> to escape, then replace, all nonfree software with freedom-respecting
> free software.
> 
> We maintain an Emacs package archive that consists of free packages
> that can run in a free environment.  There is another Emacs package
> archive called Melpa which distributes packages require the user to
> install some nonfree programs.  That practice is harmful because it
> encourages the installation of those nonfree programs, and that works
> against our goal -- it prioritizes short-term convenience over
> freedom.
> 
> Rather than prioritize short-term convenience over freedom, we
> normally avoid mentioning that Malpa exists.
> 
> As a special exception, we mentioned it in a question in this survey,
> to get data about its use.  That does not mean we have changed our
> minds about our criticism of Melpa.
> ======================================================================