Just by chance, I came across a seemingly unrelated (and a bit old)
article which lists pros and cons of various package managers ([0]).
According to it, PyPI (Python), RubyGems (Ruby), NPM and Bower
(JavaScript) and Lein (Clojure) allow packages without any explicit
licensing info into their repos
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> * disallowing non-FLOSS-licensed
This is a good opportunity to point out that th
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
Is anyone working on making a free version of some repository?
Would someone like to
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> Most of the repositories listed are based on manifest files that contain
> lice
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> I have been thinking along similar lines, namely adding something like a
> disa
> * Make free replacement repositories, and modify our versions
> of those packages to use the free ones. We would fill
> free replacement repositories with the free packages from
> the existing repositories.
I think making just simple wrapper scripts that emulate pip, cargo, etc.
behaviour on to
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:04:34PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > Curisously enough, recently a novice translator argued that
> > the combination of "free" and "libre" must mean "free as in freedom"
> > and "gratis", because "libre" means freedom, so "free" is unnecessary
> > unless
Do the MELPA and Marmalade Emacs package repositories have similar
problems with non-free software? I've always wondered...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> Curisously enough, recently a novice translator argued that
> the combination o
On April 12, 2016 5:11:57 AM AST, Ineiev wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 04:49:59AM -0400, Julien Kyou wrote:
>> On April 12, 2016 3:12:03 AM AST, Ineiev wrote:
>> >
>> >Curiously enough, recently a novice translator argued that
>> >the combination of "free" and "libre" must mean "free as in free
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 04:49:59AM -0400, Julien Kyou wrote:
> On April 12, 2016 3:12:03 AM AST, Ineiev wrote:
> >
> >Curisously enough, recently a novice translator argued that
> >the combination of "free" and "libre" must mean "free as in freedom"
> >and "gratis", because "libre" means freedom,
On April 12, 2016 3:12:03 AM AST, Ineiev wrote:
>
>Curisously enough, recently a novice translator argued that
>the combination of "free" and "libre" must mean "free as in freedom"
>and "gratis", because "libre" means freedom, so "free" is unnecessary
>unless it adds some different meaning.
Actua
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:49:25AM -0400, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>
> Not that it is ideal, but if they reject a full replacement to "free
> software", maybe they'd consider "free/libre and open source software".
>
> I'm not fond of "free and open source software" because (as an
> increasing trend) o
On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 21:44 -0400, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> > * Ask the people that run those repositories to stop recommending
> > nonfree software.
>
> I think one additional feature I would like to see (not so much for the
> repositories themselves but for the underlying software), is a means of
>
> * Ask the people that run those repositories to stop recommending
> nonfree software.
I think one additional feature I would like to see (not so much for the
repositories themselves but for the underlying software), is a means of
placing license restrictions on your projects or libraries.
Most
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> I'm not fond of "free and open source software" because (as an
> increasing tre
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> As an incentive, perhaps the FSF could recognise ethical repositories
> on thei
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:25:03 +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> I would also suggest that any Haskell developers and users who are
> reading this email try to convince Hackage and haskell.org into
> changing "open source" to *free software*, thereby highlighting what
> really matters.
Not that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
As an incentive, perhaps the FSF could recognise ethical repositories
on their Website. Although Hackage[0] rejected my patch to change
"open source" to "free software", they have taken a commendably clear
stance in rejecting nonfree software.
I wou
> A lot of programming languages have own Package Manager
> Examples of those packages managers: npm (CSS/JavaScript), Bower
> (Web), pip (Python), Ruby Gems (Ruby),
> CPAN (Perl), Cargo (Rust), ...
These repositories with nonfree software a real problem. However, we
don't run these repos
Most of us use Package manager to install Programs
in fully free gnu/linux distributions all the repositorys is free software
But wait
this seme not tru
A lot of programming languages have own Package Manager
Examples of those packages managers: npm (CSS/JavaScript), Bower
(Web), pip (Python), Rub
21 matches
Mail list logo
