GPA File Manager

Robert J. Hansen rjh at
Fri Nov 18 03:31:31 CET 2011

On 11/17/2011 4:39 PM, Mark Kirchner wrote:
> I used "public" as in "open to the public". At least that was what I was
> trying to do, but since I'm not a native speaker, I might have mis-used
> the word.

Speaking generally, in English saying something is a "public so-and-so"
means it belongs to the public, not that it is open to the public.  The
opposite, a "private so-and-so," means it belongs to an individual or a
company.  There are exceptions, of course, but this is the general rule.
 I hope this helps.  :)

> Hm, in my totally personal opinion that comparison is a bit skewed: The
> rule of not mentioning proprietary software should -also in my opinion-
> better be compared to "not being allowed to ask the dealer / another
> customer / a random bystander what he thinks of a Peugeot at all".

But that's not what the rule is.  The rule is against *recommending or
encouraging the use* of proprietary software, the same way that in an
Audi dealership you might be forbidden from recommending or encouraging
the use of Peugeots.  The remark that caused the reminder about the rule
was someone advising to look at GPGShell, that it would do everything
they needed and more.  That's not mentioning GPGShell: that's
recommending it.

I can tell you from personal experience I've mentioned proprietary
software here before without running afoul of the rules.  For instance,
"what are the major differences between GnuPG and PGP?"  PGP is a
proprietary piece of software, but since I'm not encouraging the use of
PGP no one really cares.  It's the same way that in an Audi dealership I
might be allowed to ask, "so what's the difference in performance
between an R8 and an RCZ?"

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list