Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com>]

Antoine Levitt <antoine.levitt@gmail.com> writes:

    >     They don't want GNU's "official" participation in the survey, they just
    >     want the largest number of open source developpers to participate. Their
    >     study is about how open source devs work together as teams in
    >     distributed environments. Emacs is open source (aside from being "part
    >     of the GNU project"), therefore it makes sense to ask emacs devs for
    >     their input on this. Philosophy has nothing to do with it.
    >
    > Antoine that's a sloppy way of promoting the ghost of dissolution you
    > mention above.

    I don't promote anything. I just think that trying to force an agenda on
    such a survey is essentially useless. It's like someone on the street
    loudly complaining that the system of government is wrong to a pollster
    asking who you're gonna vote on the next election. It's slightly awkward
    to walk by, but I just have to cross the street and ignore it, which is
    what I'm going to do.

In both cases, the pollsters are investigating possibly private matters,
convictions---for one to ask for the allowance of some context to be
given in the interest of more precise expression is understandable, even
laudable.

The abysmal nature of language has produced readings of RMS as asserting
`pressure' and an `empty threat', and already in this short thread.

Describing yourself as you do in your analogy above, and initially when
you posited a dissolution from principled work to mere protocol, is a
promotion in this conversation.  It is no less valid than RMS's
promotions.

Move forward and promote each other's freedom of expression.  The
precision is the juice ... albeit flowing into the abyss.