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: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:20:19 +0100 Message-ID: <878uh3dquk.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <54B1B97E.9070204@gmail.com> <87fvbhk4ha.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <54B456C8.6010506@gmail.com> <8761cbhvhb.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <54B5AA10.7080606@gmail.com> <54B6F8EF.7020401@gmail.com> <54B8326B.90804@gmail.com> <54B889CC.9030401@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421400288 4495 80.91.229.3 (16 Jan 2015 09:24:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:24:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jacob Bachmeyer Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 16 10:24:47 2015 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 1YC394-0001Ek-Ib for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:24:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54785 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YC393-0002EJ-UI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:24:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34724) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YC38y-0002B0-Sd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:24:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YC38y-0006pz-11 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:24:40 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58336) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YC38x-0006pv-Uv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:24:39 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37268 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YC38i-0003Dy-ML; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:24:24 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1CAA0E048C; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:20:19 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <54B889CC.9030401@gmail.com> (Jacob Bachmeyer's message of "Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:47:24 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:181326 Archived-At: Jacob Bachmeyer writes: > Richard Stallman wrote: >> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] >> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] >> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] >> >> The situation with Emacs will be the same as it is with GCC now: >> plug-ins have to be GPL. >>=20=20=20 > > > This illuminates the central question at hand: if an Emacs plugin is > GPL, and provides access to internals of GCC, which is also GPL, can > nonfree software use that Emacs plugin? That's not the central question at hand. The central question is: if an Emacs plugin can provide access to internals of GCC, what keeps nonfree software from using the same mechanism as the Emacs plugin to get access to internals of=A0GCC? If you combine Emacs and GCC, there will be one point where Emacs ends and GCC begins. And that is the point where you can swap out either for a nonfree application without getting copyright involved, since GCC and Emacs are clearly independent applications. The price for interoperation is interoperation. And since it is rather more than less important for free as opposed to proprietary software that independent teams can create cooperating applications, I don't see that it makes sense for us not to pay that price. And the latest point to which we can delay this is when a concrete application is imminent. We can't guarantee that such an application will be successful if we allow it. But it will definitely fail if we don't. --=20 David Kastrup