From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:01:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20080817080126.GB1294@muc.de> References: <20080814083817.GA2593@muc.de> <877iak7xfp.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <873al79akr.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <48A5BAD7.8030302@emf.net> <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <48A78EE4.50802@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1218959962 24660 80.91.229.12 (17 Aug 2008 07:59:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 07:59:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, hannes@saeurebad.de To: Thomas Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 17 10:00:14 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KUdBF-0001l5-6M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:00:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45698 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUdAI-0006wa-HG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUdAC-0006wV-S8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUdAB-0006wJ-VM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58558 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUdAB-0006wG-SM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:58:59 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:1075 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KUdAB-0007EO-43 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:58:59 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 57048 invoked by uid 3782); 17 Aug 2008 07:58:57 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E52859.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.40.89]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:58:55 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 2502 invoked by uid 1000); 17 Aug 2008 08:01:27 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48A78EE4.50802@emf.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:102546 Archived-At: Morning, Thomas! On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 07:37:24PM -0700, Thomas Lord wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > You aren't considering the effect on everybody else. > That is the main thing that I *am* considering. Not in its full compass. > >The ability to link binary libraries into Emacs means the ability to link > >non-free binaries in (think Linux modules here), possibly with _very_ > >useful functionality, whose inclusion could screw up Emacs's freedom in a > >significant way. Five years from now, lots of people could be "freely" > >chosing this "non-free" version. This would be damaging to the aims of > >the FSF. > It is defeatism if you think that Emacs maintainers can't easily hack > their way out of such a situation or even if you think that that's a > likely outcome. "Defeatism". That's a sort of ad hominem, which seems intended to deflect from analysing whether something's true or not. And no, it's not defeatism. We can hack our way out of software problems fairly easily, that's what we do. But you're kidding yourself in the extreme if you think you can just hack your way out of a legal problem, or a social problem. > >Now I'm not saying this is an overwhelming argument. > I'm saying it's completely underwhelming. Yes, but you're doing it by shouting loudly, disparaging people by calling them "defeatists", and evading others' arguments rather than facing them head on. My last post was an attempt to get you to analyse these arguments. > > I'm saying that it must be weighed and balanced against the > > (substantial) benefits of binary libraries. Just as individual > > people's freedom to own guns must be weighed against the right of > > the community not to have its members shot. > Stephen said it a different way. I said it already. There is no > "must be weighed and balanced" here. Yes, that's what RMS would > have us believe -- that it is a judgment call and one that has to be > made centrally and who better to make it.... RMS is battle hardened with bitter experience behind him. He's possibly the only one of us with any useful feel for legalities. There is nobody better to make the final judgement. > I argued that no judgment call is needed. By generic reasoning -- > just general common sense principles -- that feature X enables > non-free hacks is neutral: never an argument against feature X. That > feature X enables many free software hacks is an argument for X. I've heard your argument and I accept it as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. You're oblivious to some of the wider issues - responding to these with words like "defeatism" isn't useful discussion. > >My opinion on allowing binary libraries into Emacs is that its > >dangers would be greater than the benefits it would allow. I'm > >willing to be persuaded I'm mistaken. > How did you become persuaded of the supposed "dangers" in the first > place? By carefully paying attention to what people have been saying and thinking about it. > >You should address this, instead of evading it as you have done up to > >now. > Stephen's reply answered that bit well. No, _YOU_ should address this. Show, by careful discussion, that you have understood what is being said, and give quality argument against it. > -t -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).