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: code signing with foreign function interface? Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:01:18 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87pr3fxmwh.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87y6i4xg7y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87bpf0t3am.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <878wa3tpbb.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1268035447 21094 80.91.229.12 (8 Mar 2010 08:04:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:04:07 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 08 09:03:54 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NoXwP-0006jH-Jl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:03:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36875 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NoXwO-0004Qm-RD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:03:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NoXuN-0003nS-Fp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:01:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37152 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NoXuK-0003kH-Md for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:01:47 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NoXu9-0008RV-TF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:01:41 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:43372) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NoXu7-0008Qt-KB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:01:32 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NoXu5-0006fs-6X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:01:29 +0100 Original-Received: from p5b2c25dc.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.37.220]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:01:29 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c25dc.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:01:29 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c25dc.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:GW7vt74T850gngVROq8InI2pCV8= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:121727 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Emacs cannot tell if the user has made an explicit decision to load > the module or not, but sometimes will refuse to load the module even > though the user definitely wants it loaded (and the user may even know > that the module *is* GPL and why that matters). That's a "noticeable" > restriction. You may not consider it a big deal, but others might. I > don't know, so I used the word "noticeable" rather than > "unacceptable". ;-) Technical protection measures in Free Software appear mostly meaningless to me since we are talking about an environment where tracing the action of the protection is quite feasible. Building a version which just circumvents any such protection is easy enough, distributing it should be perfectly within the scope of the GPL. In short: you land with an approach inconveniencing those users most who are willing to accept the decisions leading to the technical restriction measures. But for those, we don't need the technical restrictions in the first place. It does not seem useful to me to inconvenience our friends more than our opponents with some measure. -- David Kastrup