new release of GPA

[Robert J. Hansen]

On 10/29/2012 5:37 PM, User wrote:
> Just because "you" have decided to cherry pick your definition of the
> English word "free" does not make it more or less so. The word not only
> can be used to mean "unconstrained", such as you seem to want, but it
> can, and in fact more commonly does, also mean "obtainable without any
> payment". And you will find both these definitions in the online Free
> Dictionary here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free.  Oh, and you
> should feel "free" to quote me on that if you like.

Believe it or not, I do not agree with the Free Software Foundation.
(I've said this before: perhaps you didn't see it.)  That does not
change the fact that on a mailing list run by an FSF project, I believe
it is only reasonable to comply with their request that non-free
software, in the FSF sense of 'free software', not be recommended.

>>> And there was no disrespect intended from what I can see. "The fact 
>>> remains that..." the GnuPG product is apparently broken and the OP
>>> was looking for a GUI program. Not everyone wants to use a CLI.
>> "Broken" is pretty strong language.
>>
>> Not everyone wants a CLI, true.  That doesn't mean GnuPG is broken: it
>> means that GnuPG does not satisfy the needs of some users.
>
> Now you are making up stories because no one ever said that GnuPG CLI
> was broken...

Read your own words, please.  You're the one who said the GnuPG product,
not the GPA product.

> I could yes, but perhaps you should look for yourself since you have
> never seen it, by your own admission. Anyway, how can you honestly
> continue to justify your position of respecting that this topic not be
> discussed when you yourself continue to respond with one reason after
> another in your defense?  Your very actions are contrary to your
> purported opinion. 

I never said GPGshell shouldn't be *discussed*.  I said that the Free
Software Foundation would much rather that non-free software was not
*recommended* on FSF-related mailing lists.