From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CVS is the `released version' Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:13:31 +0200 Message-ID: <86k5v2idck.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <2cd46e7f0705101124r72000f78xdf05d18ca815ca57@mail.gmail.com> <17991.47259.210100.801472@localhost.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1179749629 857 80.91.229.12 (21 May 2007 12:13:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:13:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: bob@rattlesnake.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 21 14:13:46 2007 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 1Hq6ld-0000bn-Rl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 14:13:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq6ld-00016v-3q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 08:13:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq6la-00016p-F2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 08:13:34 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq6lZ-00016d-Qf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 08:13:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq6lZ-00016a-NZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 08:13:33 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hq6lZ-0003TK-Bv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 08:13:33 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11568 for ; Mon, 21 May 2007 14:13:27 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 21432 invoked from network); 21 May 2007 12:13:31 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 21 May 2007 12:13:31 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E50238F830; Mon, 21 May 2007 14:13:31 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Robert J. Chassell's message of "Mon\, 21 May 2007 12\:03\:33 +0000 \(UTC\)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:71490 Archived-At: "Robert J. Chassell" writes: > rms> This might tempt redistributors (such as GNU/Linux distros) > rms> to add other repositories. I don't want to ask for trouble. > > Unfortunately this does not align very well with my goals in > writing package.el. ... download and install ... the 3rd > party, unassigned code ... > > Since all software in the United States is copyrighted on creation, > whether or not a copy of that code is sent to the copyright office, > unless it is specifically said to be public domain, downloading and > installing "3rd party, unassigned code" may mean `illegally using > code'. Most programs, of course, are never used illegally. But a few > may be. This can be awkward. > > Doubtless, you are thinking of code that you or people you trust have > checked for legality, but not every American does. That sounds like making the tool responsible for the crime. We are not talking about something akin to "gun control" but rather to "kitchen knife control". The legitimate uses are much too farspread that it makes sense blaming the tool for it. And there is in particular no sense in banning a tool when that does nothing to change the relative difficulty between legitimate and illegitimate applications. Anyway, we are not out to doing the government's work in shooting the users in the foot. We are bound by the laws, but we need not proactively support them. -- David Kastrup