From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: redisplay system of emacs Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:21:17 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4B633B7C.8030700@gmx.de> <873a1nvlki.fsf@gmail.com> <4B65B180.5010202@gmx.de> <87ock8pb21.fsf@xemacs.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1265145844 11587 80.91.229.12 (2 Feb 2010 21:24:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: grishka@gmx.de, paul.r.ml@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 02 22:23:55 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 1NcQDw-0004x0-RM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:23:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53442 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NcQDP-0007M5-Au for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:23:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NcQBW-0006Lu-Ic for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:21:22 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36352 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NcQBW-0006Li-9F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:21:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NcQBU-0002BN-Uv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:21:22 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:43397) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NcQBU-0002BJ-Lh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:21:20 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NcQBR-000469-Q1; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:21:17 -0500 In-reply-to: <87ock8pb21.fsf@xemacs.org> (stephen@xemacs.org) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:120829 Archived-At: > Exactly. This aspect of things is what the term "ecosystem" does not > recognize, and that's why it is better not to use that term here. I really am amused by this turn of discussion, because advocates of copyleft are in precisely the same position. Their *amoral*, objective analysis of human behavior This is a paradox -- an appearance of contradiction that comes from a misunderstanding. The argument for copyleft comes from taking a moral stance towards the situation in which many people do not follow our moral ideals. It is a fact that many people in our field take an amoral stance towards this issue, and it is important to recognize the facts, but that is not the same as taking an amoral stance ourselves. By contrast, if we call our software an "ecosystem", then we take an amoral stance. That's what we shouldn't do. Thus, the difference between _our stance_ and our recognition of _others' stances_ dispels the paradox.