Re: Contradictiory directions

[Óscar Fuentes]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> It's still based on looking at the names of modules: proprietary modules
> could easily be renamed so that their filenames are the same as the free
> ones, and vice versa: it is not concrete at all.

Propietary modules can define any symbol, so the
"this_module_is_fine_with_gnus" or whatever trick is used on Emacs and
gcc modules is even less of a solution. I can foresee a propietary
module playing that trick, but changing the name of the module and
creating a name collision with some of the most popular modules out
there is a bit too risky even for the most adventurous propietary
vendor.

> The PCRE and csvtable modules are also in the public domain.
> Proprietary versions of them could be created ino the future.

So you just decidead that all those versions that allow to distribute
non-free versions of the code are incompatible with the GPL after all?
<sigh>

> BTW, the term "allowlist" is confusing.  It took me a while to guess its
> meaning.  Why not use the industry-standard term "whitelist" instead?

Today you are in the mood of picking an argument, aren't you? ;-)