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: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:07:24 +0100 Message-ID: <87zj9dqqar.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <54B1B97E.9070204@gmail.com> <87fvbhk4ha.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <54B456C8.6010506@gmail.com> <8761cbhvhb.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <54B5AA10.7080606@gmail.com> <54B6F8EF.7020401@gmail.com> <54B8326B.90804@gmail.com> <54B889CC.9030401@gmail.com> <19FB0015-E64B-4161-9BDE-BD6C41A9402F@gmail.com> <20150120124121.2270ebdd@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421777267 30465 80.91.229.3 (20 Jan 2015 18:07:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:07:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: chad , Richard Stallman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 20 19:07:46 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 1YDdDO-0007R1-1T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:07:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45052 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDdDN-0005WN-72 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:07:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60089) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDdDJ-0005WB-PZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:07:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDdDI-0001QR-MU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:07:41 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34307) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDdDI-0001QN-Id for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:07:40 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41480 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDdDB-0001pF-5s; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:07:33 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 57961E0564; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:07:24 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20150120124121.2270ebdd@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> (Perry E. Metzger's message of "Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:41:21 -0500") 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:181483 Archived-At: "Perry E. Metzger" writes: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:35:26 -0500 Richard Stallman > wrote: >> The GCC developers told me Dragon Egg is not practical for real use. > > It is no longer practical for real use because of bitrot. It was the > preferred C++ front end for LLVM before Clang matured and was quite > usable at that time. > >> But it is indeed an example of the danger that concerns me. > > Your concern about people mixing and matching parts of software is > not crazy. As many of us have acknowledged in the course of these > discussions, that can indeed happen. The question is whether it is > worth making lots of important things impossible to do in the FSF's > free software ecosystem in order to prevent bad things from > happening here and there. (There are also those like me who argue > that, because of LLVM, it is already more or less no longer possible > to prevent the bad things from happening anyway.) I think it is worth pointing out that DragonEgg was basically the full-extent danger that the strategies concerning GCC plugin philosophies was supposed to avoid. It is both important to note that the restrictions placed on plugin development were not successful in blocking DragonEgg, and that DragonEgg nevertheless did not manage to be of permanent relevance. Now part of the reason is that the active driving forces behind LLVM object to the GPL for both practical as well as philosophical reasons and consider the requirement to use GPLed components a blemish rather than a convenience. We cannot rely on the creators of proprietary (rather than permissively licensed) software solutions being driven by the same motivations that caused DragonEgg to fizzle. But at least those large companies which can easily be classified as mostly adverse to free software tend to avoid touching GPLed software, particularly GPLv3. So we have to worry more about the business friends of the GPL (like the Android universe) than the enemies. And those tend to prefer developing their own replacements over getting bad press. While the overall situation leading to DragonEgg's demise is not guaranteed to stay the same forever, it is one relevant data point. >> To read all the mail that people sent about this, and think about >> it, I need a block of time. > > That is understandable. I think the only concern is that it would be > better that this not be put off indefinitely. Indeed. -- David Kastrup