1. 8
  1.  

  2. 4

    What’s the context here?

    I could only find this 2016 mention in a quick search, where rms says that people shouldn’t mention melpa.org because the site uses JavaScript “which does not seem to carry free software licenses”…

    1. 1

      A mailing list (emacs-devel) dispute makes sense, given a preceding commit?

      1. 3

        Working with Stallman is probably frustrating at first, but eventually I imagine you just have to learn that arguing with him is like arguing with a wall.

        Gotta respect his dedication to his principals though.

        1. 3

          I don’t find this that egregious. If you’re opening up your own pizza place, you shouldn’t mention that there’s a Pizza Hut two blocks away.

          1. 4

            This would be more like if you’re making a pizza oven, you avoid mentioning that it works with dough that you don’t provide.

            1. 2

              Hm, perhaps you’re right. I guess I hadn’t really thought of it like that.

              Unrelated, I really appreciate what you’ve done with Fennel and other projects. I think years from now, people like you will be looked upon as significant influences during a time where Lisps were being forgotten about. Thanks.

              1. 2

                It’s not a blanket ban on mentioning any doughs that are provided by other than you or your friends, it’s just a removal of a mention of a dough place that, say, refuses to share the recipe for their dough.

                You’re also not breaking the oven to reject those doughs or any doughs other than yours, you’re simply deciding not to recommend dough places that use secret recipes and so may harm whoever ingests it or cannot be ascertained to be halal or vegan or glucose-free or whatever flavour of moral compunctions or health concerns you have.

                I still have trouble finding it that egregious.