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: IDE Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:23:11 +0200 Message-ID: <87lhbbggz4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <5610207A.2000300@harpegolden.net> <83fv1r3gzp.fsf@gnu.org> <83bncf3f9k.fsf@gnu.org> <5610E0BC.8090902@online.de> <83si5r106e.fsf@gnu.org> <831td9z18h.fsf@gnu.org> <5612E996.7090700@yandex.ru> <83bnc7tavr.fsf@gnu.org> <87pp0ngksh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83zizrrqs2.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444472615 30153 80.91.229.3 (10 Oct 2015 10:23:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:23:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: adatgyujto@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 10 12:23:27 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 1ZkrJC-0003MT-I5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:23:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44324 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkrJB-0003me-UD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 06:23:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37557) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkrJ9-0003mX-9I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 06:23:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkrJ8-00045F-C9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 06:23:19 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47824) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkrJ6-00044s-AR; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 06:23:16 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33407 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkrJ2-0000aG-Bz; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 06:23:13 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C1F39DF4E6; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:23:11 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83zizrrqs2.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:55:57 +0300") 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:191113 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: David Kastrup >> Cc: Tom , emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:00:46 +0200 >> >> attempts of letting GCC similarly output AST data were rejected as >> making it too easy to support non-free applications (obviously, if >> Emacs can use GCC for purposes of syntax analysis from the command >> line, so can anybody else). > > That's not how that discussion ended. It ended by Richard saying he > wanted to study the issue in more depth, before making his decision. It's been more than half a year. The time frames in which people involve themselves in personal projects are smaller than that. So the issue becomes a theoretic one and does no longer warrant taking risks or making difficult decisions. Rinse and repeat. That's why I think we need a general course change regarding interoperability without an immediate tangible purpose. Because otherwise we kill incubation. The most important tool of the programmer is the garbage bin. If we take that away, if we demand a proof of success before opening any possibility, we are taking one of the most important assets of freedom: the possibility that someone may use that freedom for purposes beyond our imagination. Yes, that may cut both ways. But we do have the GPLv3 and we should trust it to keep the damage in check because the alternative is limiting what we can do with free software for advancing free software. >> So people's hands are bound until a complete plan has been worked out >> and/or blessed by Richard > > No one's hands are bound. Whoever is motivated enough will find a way > to bypass the restrictions and limitations. That's not particularly inspiring. -- David Kastrup