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 22:10:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87k2r31znz.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> 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 1443903051 9144 80.91.229.3 (3 Oct 2015 20:10:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 20:10:51 +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 22:10:48 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 1ZiT8n-0003kC-Eu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 22:10:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39882 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiT8m-0006e3-Ef for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:10:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45595) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiT8W-0006ds-Lx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:10:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiT8V-0006nv-1r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:10:28 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:45441) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiT8U-0006mq-Pj; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:10:26 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59260 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiT8T-00009q-Sz; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:10:26 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 69A4CF0D10; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 22:10:24 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <56103479.6090900@online.de> ("Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=F6hle?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?r=22's?= message of "Sat, 03 Oct 2015 22:03:05 +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:190824 Archived-At: 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, rath= er 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 emphasize= 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 detail. E= ither 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 the pr= ogram. 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=C2=A0actually made rather than John's interpretation of it. --=20 David Kastrup