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: New maintainer Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:03:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87bncf1x7n.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <560CCEBA.9080607@online.de> <874miapdhs.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8737xuuw2y.fsf@rabkins.net> <87lhbmkrle.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5r22qh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <56103479.6090900@online.de> <87k2r31znz.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <56103E4B.5070205@online.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443906233 20718 80.91.229.3 (3 Oct 2015 21:03:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:03:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: John Wiegley , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=F6hler?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 03 23:03:38 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 1ZiTxx-0006rB-Pa for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:03:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40006 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiTxs-0002LY-57 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 17:03:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55927) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiTxo-0002LE-7S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 17:03:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiTxm-0004Iu-Oj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 17:03:28 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:46085) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiTxm-0004Iq-Ly; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 17:03:26 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59904 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiTxl-0001my-MI; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 17:03:26 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3CA5EF0D10; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:03:24 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <56103E4B.5070205@online.de> ("Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=F6hle?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?r=22's?= message of "Sat, 03 Oct 2015 22:44:59 +0200") 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:190829 Archived-At: Andreas R=C3=B6hler writes: > Am 03.10.2015 um 22:10 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Andreas R=C3=B6hler writes: >> >>> Am 03.10.2015 um 21:26 schrieb John Wiegley: >>>>>>>>> David Kastrup writes: >>>>> The whole point of GNU is the non-acceptance of software denying the >>>>> users the fundamental software freedoms. This constitutes a moral >>>>> judgment and as such is indistinguishable from "demonizing >>>>> opponents" or at the very least damning their actions. >>>> Then I respectfully withdraw myself as a candidate for >>>> maintainer. Damning by implication is one thing; setting out to >>>> defame other organizations in order to make one's own appear the >>>> standard of virtue is something else entirely, >> And not at all what I have been saying. >> >>>> and I do not wish to be associated with such methods. >>>> >>>> Thanks to all for their supporting words and encouragement, and to >>>> the FSF for having this frank and open discussion with me on the >>>> issues that matter. >>> Don't think a moral is 'indistinguishable from demonizing opponents", >>> as David writes. That's a misguided pseudo-religous approach. Also >>> AFAIK it's not the declared FSF policy. >> >> >> Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer >> users' freedom=E2=80=94for users to control the software they use, = rather >> than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom and >> community, we call it =E2=80=9Cfree software.=E2=80=9D >> >> We also sometimes call it =E2=80=9Clibre software=E2=80=9D to empha= size that we're >> talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary (nonfree) >> programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others, such as >> Flash Player, are available gratis=E2=80=94but that's a minor detai= l. Either >> way, they give the program's developer power over the users, power >> that no one should have. >> >> Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are >> both malware. That is, both have functionalities designed to >> mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware >> because the developers' power corrupts them. >> >> With free software, the users control the program, both individually >> and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming >> those computers are loyal and do what the users' programs tell them >> to do). >> >> With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some >> other entity (the developer or =E2=80=9Cowner=E2=80=9D) controls th= e program. So the >> proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That >> is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to mistreat the users >> in other ways. >> >> I don't think that I am wide off the mark with regard to the statement >> I actually made rather than John's interpretation of it. >> > > Sorry, can't read anything which justifies or encourages "demonizing > opponents" or "at the very least damning their actions." Consider your > conclusion not just wrong but contra-productive. The liberation effort > of the soviets died from these kind of treatment. Shrug. I was quoting John's choice of words. He stated: I don't recognize your authority to tell me what is and is not ethical, Richard, and think you should stop using words like "injustice" and "inethical" in your presentations. Not everyone agrees with you, so calling them wrong to paint yourself as right does little service to your cause. If you present the benefits and virtue of GNU-like systems, it gives weight to your message. But standing out by demonizing opponents is a horse that politicians have beat to death, and has never, ever led to lasting success. In the end, it will be up to him to decide whether the paragraphs I=C2=A0quoted are what he calls "demonizing opponents". I considered it likely that they were of the kind he was talking about and stated the reasons for which I considered it unrealistic of John to expect any change in that regard. --=20 David Kastrup