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: Google modules integration Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:30:28 -0400 Message-ID: References: <878w3a1x9s.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> <877hiu15so.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1284183169 21154 80.91.229.12 (11 Sep 2010 05:32:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 05:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: julien@danjou.info, emacs-devel@gnu.org, carsten.dominik@gmail.com To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 11 07:32:47 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 1OuIhi-0002l1-Ss for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 07:32:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60139 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OuIhi-0006Bt-73 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:32:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58479 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OuIfQ-00050x-HL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:30:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OuIfO-0004x1-Rj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:30:24 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:33349) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OuIfO-0004wx-QT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:30:22 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OuIfU-0001fX-DV; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:30:28 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:00:09 +0200) 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:129949 Archived-At: Our definition of "free" and "proprietary" is applicable to copies of programs. It does not apply to protocols or to services. They raise different issues. the protocol is proprietary (even if built above standards like json, XML, TCP, ...) We sometimes call a protocol proprietary if we are blocked from supporting it in free software. Protocols cause problems when they are secret, but this one evidently isn't secret. Patented protocols also cause trouble, but when the public needs to use them, we try to implement them in free software nonetheless. It looks like there is no obstacle to implementing this protocol in free software, since we're talking about an implementation of it. and the server software with which you communicate is also proprietary (tho it probably also uses a lot of Free Software internally). Whether a service runs on nonfree software is not a question that directly affects the people that use the service. We don't know -- we can't tell as users -- whether there is any proprietary software on the server. If there is, we are sorry for Google's misfortune and encourage them to replace it soon, but that is no reason to refuse to deal with them in the mean time.