Re: [O] BeOrg

[Ian Dunn]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Davis <address@hidden> writes:

    Peter> If we refuse to provide useful information just because it
    Peter> violates some purist idea of what is or is not acceptably
    Peter> unencumbered, then we’re just denying users potential helpful
    Peter> capabilities that may make the difference between using
    Peter> org-mode or abandoning it completely in favor of some
    Peter> commercial, cross-platform solution.

Nicolas mentioned that as a GNU package, we're not allowed to mention
proprietary software[1].  My understanding is that the reasoning behind
this is that we don't want to appear to endorse proprietary software.
The GNU project finds proprietary software unethical, so they will not
see it as providing useful information, but endorsing an unethical
solution.

Peter, I understand your reasoning; the LGPL was designed specifically
for this purpose, i.e. allowing a non-free solution built upon a free
one.  However, I don't believe we should encourage use of such solutions
without evidence that people are turned away from Org mode because of a
mobile solution they don't like.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html#References

-- 
Ian Dunn