From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "John Wiegley" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:04:08 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <874miapdhs.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8737xuuw2y.fsf@rabkins.net> <87lhbmkrle.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5r22qh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <5612CEA6.3010809@yandex.ru> <87egh95cze.fsf@gmail.com> <5612D36B.1030906@yandex.ru> <87a8rx5awg.fsf@gmail.com> <87fv1pyrbg.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444079071 7025 80.91.229.3 (5 Oct 2015 21:04:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:04:31 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 05 23:04:25 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 1ZjCvp-00033T-Ds for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:04:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47743 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCvo-000514-Rx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:04:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48870) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCvg-0004qH-S1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:04:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCvb-0005fB-V0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:04:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]:36288) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCvb-0005dy-Q9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:04:11 -0400 Original-Received: by pablk4 with SMTP id lk4so186190546pab.3 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=sezOmTcXC4haHleghruVhwKzaVjLcJt2dKfr55jN3IM=; b=zLHlfpRN2IAqCZq5KEc8FOiUu1OFJGK1/SZYtgtoVJ/EQjnA+A11bLKaMKXioR5iQr Lfv8CgK4AiOskOGg4Qq4VRcAkQq8HHfC1N+WT4hyEWKOqHBvP6H4zDvtbTd51PWrBs4R ZazJtJXEuiKEfkUXKU1NWlG2h7/AXOPz2a7bSHan50D+tcfTokv4820G+lvfz3s3xLYS vrDHdiOTZ8RRySS0JFPJReaOgCfE0ukJzkuQak+W4yE2gNht8HVtHXJg/qMvs0w3Svgr E03ag84hiCPTkBcUa+Y8TpesEuwQNZ53GTLAaTHIN9PTxw7K8GGeBrrnRH9nvE4UYgOL IPLQ== X-Received: by 10.66.219.8 with SMTP id pk8mr32556545pac.138.1444079050948; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x6sm29367497pbt.3.2015.10.05.14.04.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 63994F0757C4; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:04:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87fv1pyrbg.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> (David Engster's message of "Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:48:51 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233 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:190974 Archived-At: >>>>> David Engster writes: > I'd suggest to read the past discussion on this to better understand > Richard's position. There's a good summary at LWN: > http://lwn.net/Articles/629259/ Stefan wrote: > My understanding is that you're opposed to GCC providing this useful info > because that info would need to be complete enough to be usable as input to > a proprietary compiler backend. Isn't crippling the output of GCC, to prevent use by proprietary vendors, a direct example of limiting *our* freedom, as users who want access to that information to improve our use of Emacs (or other tools)? Making such information available does not make GCC or Emacs in any way more proprietary or freedom-destroying. If anything, it is liberating the information known to these applications, so that it can be more widely applied. Richard, can you please clarify? I can appreciate not wanting to support, favor, or even recommend, proprietary systems. But the discussion I'm reading at that link feels different from this. John