From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: General advice beyond Org Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 20:19:53 +0200 Message-ID: <87po1hx8om.fsf@gnuvola.org> References: <87in7bm4sc.fsf@mbork.pl> <87vab9zizo.fsf@gnuvola.org> Reply-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1527527957 10542 195.159.176.226 (28 May 2018 17:19:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 17:19:17 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 28 19:19:13 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fNLnc-0002dO-Hg for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 May 2018 19:19:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57237 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fNLpj-0007Dz-Lr for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 May 2018 13:21:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59164) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fNLp4-0007Du-NY for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2018 13:20:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fNLp3-0000Nh-Qz for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2018 13:20:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.agora-net.com ([67.59.132.6]:34867) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fNLp3-0000Mz-MU for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2018 13:20:41 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by mail.agora-net.com with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fNLoz-00060O-CZ; Mon, 28 May 2018 13:20:37 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by zigzag.favinet with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1fN0Gw-0007yu-Qw; Sun, 27 May 2018 20:20:02 +0200 Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sun, 27 May 2018 13:19:41 -0400") X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ttn@gnuvola.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.agora-net.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 67.59.132.6 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:116884 Archived-At: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable () Stefan Monnier () Sun, 27 May 2018 13:19:41 -0400 > > If you add "freedom to do X" you inevitably remove the > > "freedom from having others do X". > X is Free Software. > i write some, share it widely. > this stops your X how? Of course, like all tradeoffs, some are trivial because the downside is negligible. Still, which part of what I wrote do you dispute? I'm not disputing anything (at least, i don't think so), besides the assertion that i'm disputing anything. :-D My writing that is me scratching my chin, trying a value in a variable position to see how the expression evaluates. I suppose i was trying to find X that does / does not fulfill the zero-sum vibe of what you wrote, expressing my thoughts in a concise, stylized way. Still, if a dispute aimed at a particular part must be conjured, i suppose the word "inevitably" would be the obvious candidate. My understanding of "freedom from having others do X" hinges on "having others do X" to mean "delegation of X to others". So, when X is "writing/sharing free software", we get: If you add "freedom to w/s free software" you inevitably remove the "freedom from delegating w/s of free software to others". This, to my ear, doesn't hold fully. I can imagine myself a hacker honcho w/ flunkies who i assign to do exactly what i am trying to do (write/share free software), perhaps even the same algorithm, for purposes of downstream analysis, deconstruction and re-synthesis to form the "best" implementation. There is no no inevitability of removal in this scenario (that i can see). Anyway, these are new thoughts, so thanks for provoking them! (My original ponderings were not so profound.) This dispute is a quite a stretch, anyway (i'm out of practice) -- what am i missing? =2D-=20 Thien-Thi Nguyen ----------------------------------------------- (defun responsep (query) ; (2018) Software Libero (pcase (context query) ; =3D Dissenso Etico (`(technical ,ml) (correctp ml)) ...)) 748E A0E8 1CB8 A748 9BFA =2D-------------------------------------- 6CE4 6703 2224 4C80 7502 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlsK9swACgkQZwMiJEyAdQJlIgCg2kWwm6Sm65g2o5fYwwMfy5I5 lPEAoLiqxETAt6bDsE84Sc3X2KTddTnu =99E0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--