Re: [O] BeOrg

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Ilya Shlyakhter <address@hidden> writes:

>>as GNU software, we should not suggest to use non-free software
>
> But, clearly, we already do: suggesting to use MobileOrg necessarily
> suggests to use iOS.
>
> Besides, some of the main critiques of non-free software do not apply
> here: e.g. beorg doesn't lock the user into some proprietary format.

I think you are missing the point. Free software is primarily about
source code (the four definitions). Vendor lock-in is but one of the
possible consequences of non-free software. It's still non-free.

> And while it may be unethical to lure unsophisticated computer users
> into freedom-relinquishing decisions the consequences of which they
> may not fully grasp, most Org users are sophisticated enough to make
> an intelligent and informed choice.

Straw man argument.

> GNU itself distributes Emacs for Windows from its main site (
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/ ), so there's a balance of
> considerations.  I think here the balance tips in favor of mentioning
> beOrg.  I've tried MobileOrg and gave up on it, while beOrg is more
> usable; judging by the reviews, others had a similar impression.

beOrg may be technically superior, yet usability has never been
a criterion.

Really there's no balance at all: this software doesn't use any of our
libraries and doesn't share our goals. I'm happy someone developed such
software, really, but the way it was done saddens me. If you think that
is worth the shot, you may want to convince its author to turn beOrg
into free software (is that even possible on the Apple store?).

In any case, you may want to discuss this further on gnu-misc-discuss
mailing list, or possibly emacs-devel. For the time being, as far as Org
is concerned, I stand on my ground: there is no reason to reference it
in the manual.