From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Hutzley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: NonGNU ELPA package submission: EPIO Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:19:08 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ca472e05dbc26277" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17203"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 03 18:22:09 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nb2zR-0004F0-CE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 18:22:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42886 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nb2zP-0002Gb-W8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 12:22:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51886) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nb2xb-0001Fz-Aj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 12:20:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [2607:f8b0:4864:20::131] (port=33430 helo=mail-il1-x131.google.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nb2xY-0004wY-Ue; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 12:20:15 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id k15so602008ils.0; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 09:20:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=y2CYbws7UGeymUkBjNeWoqjjKconXa43K55eI3/R8Dc=; b=cro1h9Hzaz/pk9Y+5WTGSA87prNT5JyjOQe6AMnvBLKVdd5ywhFEq5/2skEDjMomBJ N/9AtdUqP12IsoPryF4ns1xt9m3vYa5M/5pNNfAswUFoKIP91DjYD4Iz4/vLnnVGDz1v dX/fiDCy7QeAlUPfkZcvdwLCqC/EboG4VfJmHosUSJFabquATTiNcqvZGX+5gwTBE4Rl R7lPxX3TVDzYRDmIsOF73iRa9VlC95M4HQntSoKg9f1c56MnZhBBCHYfQ9JN/WAHhP66 L9qenrdYwnh7i7jrNdbI3fCukx99O9rZ862tceTyVSxCrxN1uvOEacGtdP4GulOLYGIU c/mg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=y2CYbws7UGeymUkBjNeWoqjjKconXa43K55eI3/R8Dc=; b=wKf8YQ/s26nwMvXPVc4+95T/7pXng9nR1vbvAcSNfPb439jSAStNa1nwpawj7FXHDp oE9o+ZlFBed3tcJq+Cr1rZMzPBn+gWTJhke/r+C7pz2BraMRy+jFcMbUSp/onEeN+aRf JZ7aVZjjbyY9IMAGzj78EcPejNROg7k0DYqLStUISbNZ2W3VrgoKlHtiDEWLBWBmy9L5 HxbQXCG4M0cFQy/wV0TWQ7HHgRoItjJfKPizNWccspMuTURIV8O/3vNvyjcoZd71GAAp vhzcHtRkrsD/EKbl+yp0gnnUUFvTlnaAswT1a4TfLvqj/OfVf9fnCRVynbf8wjBqi2oU 8inA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53065deP7FirPADyQa13XUYqEPxxzPhV6U/+jfoXQb8fvKVy7Cup 3rcx9aIjK1j9GEpxzaOH/3FMUucir6mZMeYKLMWuWana2KA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxzwKKPUBeK8Z/84yTuG+NRCabK0545WjUCN86qwtYJxy/VeurZV7iFcmWp/76RO1YZuZ4VH9C1g3HfR6COwYk= X-Received: by 2002:a92:c246:0:b0:2c7:c7e5:e6f9 with SMTP id k6-20020a92c246000000b002c7c7e5e6f9mr3848120ilo.166.1649002811113; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 09:20:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2607:f8b0:4864:20::131 (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::131; envelope-from=endergeryt@gmail.com; helo=mail-il1-x131.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_HP_HELO_NORDNS=0.659, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:287737 Archived-At: --000000000000ca472e05dbc26277 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey, Sure, though I may misunderstand here. Imagine that a GPL project is the best viable option for a component where the license=E2=80=99s viral nature= comes into play. If a company wishes to use it without holding free software ideals, they can use the license to fulfil the requirement of being open source without trying to respect user freedoms. Worse still, this makes them a =E2=80=9Cwolf in sheep=E2=80=99s clothing=E2=80=9D, since they are m= aking their software open source for a less-than-ideological reason (this likely will result in malware which is open source in license only). With a license like the MPL, the true nature of the user is far more on display, since they have to willingly make the rest of their software free (with a choice as to which license they use, allowing more flexibility). In essence, products based on MPL projects must voluntarily support freedom (and hence prove themselves to the user) or show that they are not going to respect freedom more than they must (companies already using open source licenses are usually even harder to demand freedom of, as there are fewer voices speaking). Should we entrust our freedoms to companies forced to make their software open source to respect freedom now and in the future (possibly employing tactics such as EEE to choke out their competition), or should we allow people doing the right thing willingly to have the support they need to avoid being choked out. I hope this cleared things up, =E2=80=94Danny P.S. Huge fan of the GNU project=E2=80=99s work, by the way. While I have o= ne of the two Broadcom cards that don=E2=80=99t have working reverse-engineered d= rivers and made the horrible mistake of buying a Nvidia card, I try to stick with free software where practical. On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 20:58, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > >From looking at the license list, the MPL2.0 is compatible (it's the > > MPL1.0 that is incompatible) with the GPL (I usually use it due to it= s > > weaker copyleft, which avoids software being "open source" but not > > "free" just because of the license of a dependency), > > I can't relate those words to anything I know about the MPL 2 and free > software, so I wonder if a misunderstanding might be involved. > How might this result in a program that is open source but not free? > That result does happen, but I don't see what in this situation > could have that effect. > > Would you like to spell out the scenatio that you have in mind, and > how it might result in a program that is open source but not free? > Then we could determine whether it is a misunderstanding. > > -- > Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) > Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) > Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) > Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) > > > --000000000000ca472e05dbc26277 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey,

S= ure, though I may misunderstand here. Imagine that a GPL project is the bes= t viable option for a component where the license=E2=80=99s viral nature co= mes into play. If a company wishes to use it without holding free software = ideals, they can use the license to fulfil the requirement of being open so= urce without trying to respect user freedoms. Worse still, this makes them = a =E2=80=9Cwolf in sheep=E2=80=99s clothing=E2=80=9D, since they are making= their software open source for a less-than-ideological reason (this likely= will result in malware which is open source in license only). With a licen= se like the MPL, the true nature of the user is far more on display, since = they have to willingly make the rest of their software free (with a choice = as to which license they use, allowing more flexibility). In essence, produ= cts based on MPL projects must voluntarily support freedom (and hence prove= themselves to the user) or show that they are not going to respect freedom= more than they must (companies already using open source licenses are usua= lly even harder to demand freedom of, as there are fewer voices speaking). = Should we entrust our freedoms to companies forced to make their software o= pen source to respect freedom now and in the future (possibly employing tac= tics such as EEE to choke out their competition), or should we allow people= doing the right thing willingly to have the support they need to avoid bei= ng choked out.

I hope th= is cleared things up,
=E2=80=94Danny

P.S. Huge fan of the GNU project=E2= =80=99s work, by the way. While I have one of the two Broadcom cards that d= on=E2=80=99t have working reverse-engineered drivers and made the horrible = mistake of buying a Nvidia card, I try to stick with free software where pr= actical.

On Sat, Apr 2, = 2022 at 20:58, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.= org> wrote:
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]<= br>
=C2=A0 > >From looking at the license list, the MPL2.0 is compatible = (it's the
=C2=A0 > MPL1.0 that is incompatible) with the GPL (I usually use it due= to its
=C2=A0 > weaker copyleft, which avoids software being "open source&= quot; but not
=C2=A0 > "free" just because of the license of a dependency),<= br>
I can't relate those words to anything I know about the MPL 2 and free<= br> software, so I wonder if a misunderstanding might be involved.
How might this result in a program that is open source but not free?
That result does happen, but I don't see what in this situation
could have that effect.

Would you like to spell out the scenatio that you have in mind, and
how it might result in a program that is open source but not free?
Then we could determine whether it is a misunderstanding.

--
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)


--000000000000ca472e05dbc26277--