From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ["agree"] Release plans Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:16:33 -0700 Message-ID: <48B3ADD1.50903@emf.net> References: <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080817073124.GA1294@muc.de> <87ljyv5gy5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818101802.GA2615@muc.de> <87bpzqqk7b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818210927.GD2615@muc.de> <87wsidnxqp.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080819155221.GA11524@muc.de> <871w0dcg6j.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080825220105.GA13599@muc.de> <87prnwgyvc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219731971 25530 80.91.229.12 (26 Aug 2008 06:26:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:26:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , hannes@saeurebad.de, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 26 08:27:04 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 1KXs19-0006S9-ER for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:27:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55675 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXs0B-00013T-1X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:26:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXs06-000130-O8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:25:58 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXs05-00012H-BG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:25:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45577 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXs05-00012B-5u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:25:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.42inc.com ([205.149.0.25]:38112) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (SSL 3.0:RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KXrzz-0005Sx-4d; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:25:51 -0400 X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.5 X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter-42inc: Scanned X-42-Virus-Scanned: by 42 Antivirus -- Found to be clean. Original-Received: from [69.236.75.128] (account lord@emf.net HELO [192.168.1.64]) by mail.42inc.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.13) with ESMTPA id 37653370; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:25:47 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) In-Reply-To: <87prnwgyvc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:102975 Archived-At: Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Personally, I agree with Tom: we should be going all-out to encourage > use of free software, using three main tactics: (1) emphasizing the > importance of software freedom (eg, from a code-is-law basis), (2) > emphasizing the costs both in freedom and economic value of non-free > software, and (3) providing kick-ass software that everybody wants to > use. > I'm saying an additional thing that is a bit subtle. So, there should be a (4) in that list. The additional thing is a qualifier on "kick-ass software". We want (4) Kick-ass software that is kick-ass in the specific sense that a maximized number of users will find it personally beneficial to themselves to study the code, modify it, and share modifications. That is, we want software that is not only a good choice among software in general but, among the good choices, we want software architectures and engineering practices that non-linearly reward the *exercise* of software freedom by as many users as we can. If a lot of people are fully USING software freedom, then they and many others will come to EXPECT software freedom and DEFEND software freedom. Seems like a no-brainer, to me. I would claim that API features like a dynamic loader or tree print/read in GCC are special. They encourage people to get work done by studying, modifying, and sharing code -- by their nature. GNU should / should have run for such features rather than ban them. Those feature-ban decisions were pretty much the opposite of right. I also am saying that I can't think of any non-contrived feature bans that wouldn't be subject to the same criticism. At least as a good rule of thumb, I think we could just say that, in general, no feature is banned. Then we don't have to spend nearly as much time thinking about what not to implement (and always, eventually, coming up with the null set as the best-guess answer). -t -t