From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: clang/emacs/ecb/semantic Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:08:55 +0200 Message-ID: <83ehj7rrko.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20940A983D814C6192ABFF2B7A269A88@gmail.com> <87wqx42nag.fsf@yandex.ru> <87ehjcrw70.fsf@engster.org> <87hao816w4.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87hao7ioos.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <87zk1yhib2.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <50BAE369.2030503@dancol.org> <50BC0383.30208@dancol.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1354554549 26130 80.91.229.3 (3 Dec 2012 17:09:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 17:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: pjb@informatimago.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 03 18:09:21 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TfZWC-000458-JF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:09:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49562 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TfZVz-0006dr-Eu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:09:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42914) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TfZVw-0006dU-5E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:09:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TfZVu-0006WQ-JH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:09:04 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:50920) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TfZVu-0006W6-AU; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:09:02 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MEG00J00SMYO300@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:09:00 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MEG00JZPSYZOD00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:09:00 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <50BC0383.30208@dancol.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:155192 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:42:27 -0800 > From: Daniel Colascione > Cc: pjb@informatimago.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > We must consider utilitarian calculus; that is, we must choose the > actions will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. By > choosing to limit gcc's potential for interoperability, its developers > have limited the number of users who can benefit from the good > provided by gcc's freedom. I'm sorry, but this comes across as a straw man argument, and I'm sure you didn't mean that. "... greatest good for the greatest number." I don't think you will find here anyone who won't agree with that aspiration. But that is not the issue here. The issue is how far to go in limiting freedom of others. And limit you must, because "your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." You want to limit the freedom of the Bad Guys to abuse the freedom against you and your goals. That's why we have the GPL. It is this deceptively simple issue -- where to draw the line -- that is the single most important _practical_ issue that is at stake here. It is also what distinguishes between what we call "free society" and a dictatorship. I'm sure you know all that. And yet you never mention this crucial detail, and instead insist on maximizing freedom. It's small surprise that Richard interpreted that as an attack on the GPL: after all, the GPL also limits certain freedoms, and thus leaves less people happy. More to the point, you seem to say that the line was drawn in the wrong place in this matter. But you never say why it was wrong, in practical terms, nor explain why in your POV the line should have been drawn elsewhere, or how that would benefit the free software without hurting its goals. There's no point in talking about this without discussing these _practical_ issues. Slogans, however laudable, won't cut it, because they don't provide any practical guidance that alone matters.