Re: PL support

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,
>   address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 15:49:11 -0400
> 
> 1- Install Emacs.
> 2- Try it out.
> 3- It doesn't handle their OCaml code, doesn't give them any
>    completions while they type, nothing.
> 4- They search the web for an answer.
> 5- The answer tells them to install those things from MELPA.
> 6- They wonder why on earth it's not enabled by default since it's
>    a matter of a couple lines and you can't do anything without it.
> 7- Now it's enabled, so they have direct easy access to some packages
>    that recommend proprietary software.
> 
> In which sense does this better promote Emacs and Free Software than if
> we enabled a MELPA-Libre by default in `package-archives`?

Does MELPA-Libre exist, or is it just an idea?

I have nothing against MELPA-Libre, whether it exists or will be
created at some future point, as long as it is not GNU ELPA, i.e. as
long as it is not perceived as part of the GNU Emacs project.  If it
wants to be part of the Emacs project, and the packages are supposed
to be movable between Emacs and MELPA-Libre, I will insist of applying
the same rules and basic requirements to it that we apply to code in
Emacs.

Yes, this may mean that some features will not be part of Emacs OOTB,
but I don't think that is a reason good enough to waive our
development standards.