new release of GPA

[User]

On 10/29/2012 3:41 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 04:28 PM, User wrote:
>> It is free and it says "Freeware" right on the page where the
>> reference to downloading it was shown:
> It is not Free Software.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> "'Free software' means software that respects users' freedom and
> community.  Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy,
> distribute, study, change and improve the software. ... 'free software'
> is a matter of liberty, not price.  To understand the concept, you
> should think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer.'"
>
> GPGshell is free-as-in-beer software, but it is not free-as-in-speech
> software.  Quoting from http://www.jumaros.de/rsoft/faq.html :
>
>
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.

The fact remains true nonetheless: it is free of charge for me, or you,
to use.
>
> GPGshell does not make their source code available to their users.  That
> means it cannot be considered Free Software under GNU's definition.  And
> since this mailing list is associated with GNU, and GNU requests that
> people not recommend the use of nonfree software, I think it's only
> reasonable that we comply with their request.
>
>> 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, the whole discussion is about the GPA product, which is in
fact broken.  If you had bothered to read the OP, you should see that it
is too:

Message-ID: <000601cda645$65096080$2f1c2180$__5679.8464073383$1349808729$gmane$org at net>

"The latest beta version fails to work properly on my 64-bit Windows 7
OS. Whenever I open the File Manager, either with tool or from the menu,
the program stops working and closes with an error message saying
"gpa.exe has stopped working." Working without this feature in GPA is
rather restricted. "

 So, I checked it out and, indeed, upon trying to open the GPA File
Manager, the program gives a message saying it has stopped working, and
then it terminates.  Or are you inclined to find another convenient
definition to rationalize that this does not really mean it is broken? 
:)  Sorry about that, Robert, but it is surely broken, and it even tells
you so.

>
>> Well have you seen what all it can do?
> No, because I use the CLI.
>
>> At least twice as many of the Gpg commands and options are accessible
>> from the GUI, and how many enhancements to GPA have there been in the
>> last few years?  Seems like the GUI and the Windows port in
>> particular exist out of deference at best.
> Could you perhaps make a list of, say, the top five features GPGshell
> supports that GPA doesn't?  Things that you, yourself, use regularly,
> and which would make GPA better suited for you?  I'm sure the GPA
> maintainers would be very interested in hearing it.
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.