Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Reitter]

Hi there,

I'm looking for someone with a knack for producing nice icons. I'd  
like to have new icons for common Emacs toolbars in the Aquamacs  
Emacs project (http://aquamacs.org). The goal is to produce something  
that is visually appealing in the context of modern, GUI based  
operating environments. Icons from GNOME and OS X would be typical  
examples.

I already have a complete set of pretty icons provided by a user -  
however, their copyright status was either unclear or clearly non-GPL  
compatible, which made them an unsuitable choice for us as a GPL'ed  
project. However, the big advantage for us is that we can draw from  
icons used in a variety of other projects. So much of the core work  
is done -- what remains is to find and select the right icons, make  
them look uniform / coherent, draw remaining ones.

If you have an interest in graphics, and you would like to contribute  
to a fun open source project, please e-mail me!

- D


--
http://aquamacs.org -- Aquamacs: Emacs on Mac OS X
http://www.david-reitter.com



---------------------------- Info -----------------------------
List Post: <mailto:macosx-emacs@email.esm.psu.edu>
List Archives: <http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.macintosh.osx>

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm looking for someone with a knack for producing nice icons. I'd
> like to have new icons for common Emacs toolbars in the Aquamacs
> Emacs project (http://aquamacs.org). The goal is to produce something
> that is visually appealing in the context of modern, GUI based
> operating environments. Icons from GNOME and OS X would be typical
> examples.

Why would someone want to contribute icons to a fork of Emacs (running
only on non-free software) instead of the main line?

> However, the big advantage for us is that we can draw from icons
> used in a variety of other projects. So much of the core work is
> done -- what remains is to find and select the right icons, make
> them look uniform / coherent, draw remaining ones.

It seems a bit out of place to do this work downstream when it seems
more sensible to do this in Emacs itself.

> If you have an interest in graphics, and you would like to
> contribute to a fun open source project, please e-mail me!

Emacs (as well as the GNU project) are labelled "free software" by the
FSF.  It seems a bit out of place to try recruiting people for
improving a fork for a proprietary platform on the official Emacs help
mailing list.

Is there a reason why you don't want to work on improving the icons in
Emacs proper?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Reitter]

> > However, the big advantage for us is that we can draw from icons
> > used in a variety of other projects. So much of the core work is
> > done -- what remains is to find and select the right icons, make
> > them look uniform / coherent, draw remaining ones.
>
> It seems a bit out of place to do this work downstream when it seems
> more sensible to do this in Emacs itself.
> ...
> Is there a reason why you don't want to work on improving the icons in
> Emacs proper?
I'm glad you see it that way, and we certainly would be delighted to  
make source code (or icons) available to the main Emacs. Quite a few  
patches developed for Aquamacs have already been applied and a  
package has been added, others might be in the future. Of course,  
this applies to icon designs as well.

However, the rigorous legal process involved in contributing material  
to Emacs means that we cannot just take somebody else's icons from  
GPL'd software, properly credit them and make use of their work in  
the spirit of free software. While I perfectly understand why this  
may be considered necessary for GNU software, given the history of  
Emacs, I don't see myself or anyone come up with a newly drawn set of  
icons of high quality. Instead, we need to reuse icons. Therefore, if  
someone is willing to do the work, I'd incorporate this in our  
distribution now. If the Emacs team is then willing to go through a  
discussion process as to whether to adopt a new UI, and if the FSF  
would do some legal footwork, I'd be proud to support them. But that  
is up to them, not me, to ask, "Hey, can we incorporate that?".

But before that, we'll need to do the work and I prefer doing that  
before offering a contribution. The extensive work of the Carbon  
port, e.g. was done in the same way, and the Nextstep port is under  
way in a very similar fashion.

Again, I would need a dedicated graphics person with the time to  
assemble a coherent set of icons.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com> writes:

>> > However, the big advantage for us is that we can draw from icons
>> > used in a variety of other projects. So much of the core work is
>> > done -- what remains is to find and select the right icons, make
>> > them look uniform / coherent, draw remaining ones.
>>
>> It seems a bit out of place to do this work downstream when it seems
>> more sensible to do this in Emacs itself.
>> ...
>> Is there a reason why you don't want to work on improving the icons in
>> Emacs proper?
>
> I'm glad you see it that way, and we certainly would be delighted to
> make source code (or icons) available to the main Emacs. Quite a few
> patches developed for Aquamacs have already been applied and a
> package has been added, others might be in the future. Of course,
> this applies to icon designs as well.
>
> However, the rigorous legal process involved in contributing
> material to Emacs means that we cannot just take somebody else's
> icons from GPL'd software, properly credit them and make use of
> their work in the spirit of free software.

If the people understand about the "spirit of free software", they are
likely to understand the need for a copyright assignment or disclaimer
(for icons, I guess a disclaimer would be sufficient).  It is a
written guarantee that the licensing conditions are stated accurately.

> While I perfectly understand why this may be considered necessary
> for GNU software, given the history of Emacs, I don't see myself or
> anyone come up with a newly drawn set of icons of high
> quality. Instead, we need to reuse icons. Therefore, if someone is
> willing to do the work, I'd incorporate this in our distribution
> now.

Willing to do _what_ work?  Designing icons?  Collecting them without
contacting the authors?

> If the Emacs team is then willing to go through a discussion process
> as to whether to adopt a new UI, and if the FSF would do some legal
> footwork, I'd be proud to support them. But that is up to them, not
> me, to ask, "Hey, can we incorporate that?".

It is a pity that you are not interested in the effort needed to
improve Emacs for everybody.  You certainly have the right to do so,
and this right is a consequence of Emacs being free software, but it
does not help the cause.

But you should be honest and clear enough when recruiting people to
_your_ project to mention that this is not intended to help Emacs.
And also you should refrain from calling Emacs or GNU "Open Source",
in particular on GNU lists, which is an expression intended to muddle
what free software is about: freedom.

> But before that, we'll need to do the work and I prefer doing that
> before offering a contribution.

Not "we", but some volunteer you try recruiting without being explicit
that the contribution is only intended for your own port to Carbon, a
proprietary platform.

So if somebody is going to collect icons without bothering about
written assignments or disclaimers, his work is not going to end up in
Emacs.  Even if he did the stuff himself, he has no guarantee that you
would bother extricating it from your personal fork, making sure that
nothing infringing remains, and properly contribute it to Emacs.

I think you could have made this somewhat clearer, considering that
you are asking on a GNU list.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Reitter]

On 3 Jan 2006, at 15:34, David Kastrup wrote:

> If the people understand about the "spirit of free software", they are
> likely to understand the need for a copyright assignment or disclaimer
> (for icons, I guess a disclaimer would be sufficient).  It is a
> written guarantee that the licensing conditions are stated accurately.

Most people publish their work under some Creative Commons license,  
and as far as I know that's compatible.
Contributing to Emacs involves obtaining a contract from the FSF and  
signing that (paper form) -- I understand that is what was necessary  
when the new application icon was contributed. Taking code from 20 or  
so authors and getting all of them to sign this is probably what's  
needed when you do patch work. Ask the FSF if you're interested in  
knowing more, I sure don't know much about this stuff (and I don't  
want to deal with it either).

>>   Therefore, if someone is
>> willing to do the work, I'd incorporate this in our distribution
>> now.
>
> Willing to do _what_ work?  Designing icons?  Collecting them without
> contacting the authors?

All. Somebody will need to find icons and check their copyright  
status (as far as reasonably possible), design the ones that are  
missing, keep a list of where everything came from, maybe notify but  
at least acknowledge the authors.


>  It is a pity that you are not interested in the effort needed to
> improve Emacs for everybody.  You certainly have the right to do so,
> and this right is a consequence of Emacs being free software, but it
> does not help the cause.

Around 50 percent of my time on Aquamacs goes into troubleshooting  
people's bug reports, checking whether they actually report potential  
bugs in Emacs or a package and relaying the reports (in a form useful  
to the recipients) to Emacs.

By the way, I would probably do more of that for AUCTeX (for the few  
report's we're getting) if I could see that such reports were  
followed up on in a friendly and professional manner (even if the  
user or I make a mistake and report something that's not actually a  
bug).

> But you should be honest and clear enough when recruiting people to
> _your_ project to mention that this is not intended to help Emacs.
> And also you should refrain from calling Emacs or GNU "Open Source",
> in particular on GNU lists, which is an expression intended to muddle
> what free software is about: freedom.

Please, read the original post again and tell me where exactly I make  
wrong claims, or what is unclear.
I clearly state what it's for, and I do not talk of the main GNU  
Emacs as non-free or open source software.

> Even if he did the stuff himself, he has no guarantee that you
> would bother extricating it from your personal fork, making sure that
> nothing infringing remains, and properly contribute it to Emacs.

Excuse me, but we supply source code and maintain an open-access CVS  
repository. We document what's where, and other distributions such as  
the Carbon Emacs Package take code from us every now and then (and  
we're taking theirs). It's a public project, everyone can check out  
the code and it's easy enough to extract things if you're willing to  
do so.

You can hardly blame me for not willing to convince you personally  
that a particular change is justified, given the tone of your e-mails. 

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com> writes:

> On 3 Jan 2006, at 15:34, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> If the people understand about the "spirit of free software", they are
>> likely to understand the need for a copyright assignment or disclaimer
>> (for icons, I guess a disclaimer would be sufficient).  It is a
>> written guarantee that the licensing conditions are stated accurately.
>
> Most people publish their work under some Creative Commons license,
> and as far as I know that's compatible.

Then you certainly don't know much.  There are for example CC licences
that are explicitly noncommercial.  That's incompatible.  I have no
idea whether there are any GPL-compatible CC licences, but there are
_certainly_ several incompatible ones.

> Contributing to Emacs involves obtaining a contract from the FSF and
> signing that (paper form) -- I understand that is what was necessary
> when the new application icon was contributed. Taking code from 20
> or so authors and getting all of them to sign this is probably
> what's needed when you do patch work. 

Sure, and that's what is necessary to ensure lawyers won't be knocking
at your door later because things weren't like you thought or wished
them to be.

> Ask the FSF if you're interested in knowing more, I sure don't know
> much about this stuff (and I don't want to deal with it either).

Nobody wants to deal with it.  Unfortunately, laws and courts and
copyright issues won't just go away by ignoring them.  The FSF is not
bothering with all this stuff because they think it makes for great
fun.

>>> Therefore, if someone is willing to do the work, I'd incorporate
>>> this in our distribution now.
>>
>> Willing to do _what_ work?  Designing icons?  Collecting them
>> without contacting the authors?
>
> All. Somebody will need to find icons and check their copyright
> status (as far as reasonably possible),

"As far as reasonably possible", in my book, means getting written
assurance that the legal state of the icons is compatible with
inclusion into Emacs or other GPLed works.

Of course, if you don't mind getting cease-and-desist orders and
lawyer bills, your definition of "reasonable" might be different.

> design the ones that are missing, keep a list of where everything
> came from, maybe notify but at least acknowledge the authors.

So what written guarantee will you have that this list is accurate?

>> It is a pity that you are not interested in the effort needed to
>> improve Emacs for everybody.  You certainly have the right to do
>> so, and this right is a consequence of Emacs being free software,
>> but it does not help the cause.
>
> By the way, I would probably do more of that for AUCTeX (for the few
> report's we're getting) if I could see that such reports were
> followed up on in a friendly and professional manner (even if the
> user or I make a mistake and report something that's not actually a
> bug).

Come off it.  Care to quote an example where you were treated
unprofessionally?

>> Even if he did the stuff himself, he has no guarantee that you
>> would bother extricating it from your personal fork, making sure
>> that nothing infringing remains, and properly contribute it to
>> Emacs.
>
> Excuse me, but we supply source code and maintain an open-access CVS
> repository. We document what's where, and other distributions such
> as the Carbon Emacs Package take code from us every now and then
> (and we're taking theirs).  It's a public project, everyone can
> check out the code and it's easy enough to extract things if you're
> willing to do so.

And if you are willing to bear the consequences if somebody claims
rights on the code you happened to extract in good faith.  It's not
like this has not happened in the past.  The whole mess with written
copyright assignments and disclaimers is being done _exactly_ because
of actual occurences that caused a lot of work, trouble, and also
legal expenses.

> You can hardly blame me for not willing to convince you personally
> that a particular change is justified, given the tone of your
> e-mails.

Sure, blame the messenger.  But you should still point out that you
are searching for help on a non-GNU derivative of a GNU project that
only runs on a proprietary system, and do this under conditions that
preclude this work to be of use for the upstream project.  I don't
think that a GNU help list is the right place for that.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Reitter]

On 3 Jan 2006, at 16:58, David Kastrup wrote:

>  Then you certainly don't know much.  There are for example CC  
> licences
> that are explicitly noncommercial.  That's incompatible.  I have no
> idea whether there are any GPL-compatible CC licences, but there are
> _certainly_ several incompatible ones.

Sounds like somebody is going to have to check these things. Thanks  
for the hint. (So I need an icon designer and a lawyer.)

> "As far as reasonably possible", in my book, means getting written
> assurance that the legal state of the icons is compatible with
> inclusion into Emacs or other GPLed works.

That's something where we differ - fair enough.

> So what written guarantee will you have that this list is accurate?

Well, see, the guarantee you have when someone has signed a paper is  
only worth as much as the portion of their bank account that you can  
fetch in case you need to sue them. I agree a written declaration is  
much better than the word of somebody you only know by e-mail, but  
someone's word is already enough for the vast majority of  
collaborative non-GNU projects. I appreciate that a bigger and more  
important project such as Emacs needs more safety, as I've said  
earlier on.

> But you should still point out that you
> are searching for help on a non-GNU derivative of a GNU project that
> only runs on a proprietary system,

Well actually I have high hopes for the upcoming Nextstep/OpenStep  
port, which will also run under a completely free system. The current  
port, which is part of GNU Emacs 22, runs under Carbon, part of which  
is, as you say, proprietary.

> and do this under conditions that
> preclude this work to be of use for the upstream project.

Well, not necessarily - I guess that would be up to the people that  
want to invest time in it. I'm taking from this discussion that I  
should stick to my original plan to keep a detailed list of where  
material came from so that any necessary legal papers can be easily  
obtained when the time comes.

But it's very hard to find someone who can contribute graphics, and  
honestly, I think the best chances of finding someone would be among  
Mac enthusiasts. But no volunteer, no icons, and I sure don't want to  
brag about efforts which aren't happening due to the lack of  
volunteers :)

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> But you should still point out that you are searching for help on a
> non-GNU derivative of a GNU project that only runs on a proprietary
> system, and do this under conditions that preclude this work to be
> of use for the upstream project.  I don't think that a GNU help list
> is the right place for that.

Out of curiosity, what would be the right place for that?

Aquamacs is a benefit for Mac users, being native to the interface.
The "straight" GNU Emacs is lacking in many ways in terms of its
useability (from the perspective of Mac users, anyway).

I really don't understand your hostility towards either the Aquamacs
project, or to the developer, or to Mac OS X, or whatever bug is up
your britches.  Do you think that GNU Emacs should not be available to
anyone not running a free Linux or BSD OS?  That it should not run on
Mac OS or OS X, or on Windows or any other "proprietary" OS?  Were you
angry and hostile towards Andrew Choi for making the Carbon Emacs port
possible?  After all, that only runs on Mac OSes as well.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Stallman took a different view way
back in the day.  He decided it was OK to use proprietary software to
build free software.  Adding Aquamacs to the Emacsen available in the
world increases freedom, since it too is free.  The only way it will
cause a fork (as separate like XEmacs) is if the upstream people like
yourself become closed minded and hidebound.

After all, the existing Emacs icons are pretty damned dated and sorely
in need of a facelift.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Lennart Borgman]

Tim McNamara wrote:

>After all, the existing Emacs icons are pretty damned dated and sorely
>in need of a facelift.
>  
>
But there is a decision on new icons. Pleas look at 
http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EmacsIcons

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> But you should still point out that you are searching for help on a
>> non-GNU derivative of a GNU project that only runs on a proprietary
>> system, and do this under conditions that preclude this work to be
>> of use for the upstream project.  I don't think that a GNU help list
>> is the right place for that.
>
> Out of curiosity, what would be the right place for that?

comp.emacs is not GNU-internal and would probably be an appropriate
forum with sufficient readership.  So would be Mac-specific groups and
lists.

> Aquamacs is a benefit for Mac users, being native to the interface.
> The "straight" GNU Emacs is lacking in many ways in terms of its
> useability (from the perspective of Mac users, anyway).

Which would be a reason to work on enhancing GNU Emacs instead of
forking a project that gives only benefits to the users of a
proprietary system.

> I really don't understand your hostility towards either the Aquamacs
> project, or to the developer, or to Mac OS X, or whatever bug is up
> your britches.

There is no hostility involved.  I point out that a forked, separate
project for a proprietary platform helps only users of the proprietary
platform, and that is not the goal of the GNU project.

> Do you think that GNU Emacs should not be available to anyone not
> running a free Linux or BSD OS?  That it should not run on Mac OS or
> OS X, or on Windows or any other "proprietary" OS?

Nonsense.  How do you gather that?  But it certainly is not the scope
of the GNU-project to focus on improvements _only_ for proprietary
systems.  The upstream Emacs supports Carbon, Windows, a bunch of
proprietary Unices, a host of free ones, several Window systems.
Pains are taken that improvements are available to as many people as
possible.  Providing improvements only for proprietary systems is not
a goal of the GNU project.  And doing so in a manner that rules out
ever being legally able to actually make use of those improvements for
the sake of Emacs on proprietary platforms is certainly not a goal of
the GNU project either.

> Were you angry and hostile towards Andrew Choi for making the Carbon
> Emacs port possible?  After all, that only runs on Mac OSes as well.

So what?  It is integrated into the upstream code base, and it has
been done in a manner that makes sure that it can be used legally in
Emacs without problems.

> Fortunately for the rest of us, Stallman took a different view way
> back in the day.  He decided it was OK to use proprietary software
> to build free software.  Adding Aquamacs to the Emacsen available in
> the world increases freedom, since it too is free.

Increasing freedom only for the users of unfree systems is not a goal
of the GNU project, and never has been.  Stallman has _always_ been
adamant that free platforms were the ones important catering for, and
that no features for nonfree platforms only would become part of the
GNU project.

David Reitter has explicitly stated that he will not bother making
sure that the material with which he is enhancing Aquamacs has the
required paperwork done.  That means that the Aquamacs code, like
XEmacs code in general, can't be folded back into the main Emacs code
base.

> The only way it will cause a fork (as separate like XEmacs) is if
> the upstream people like yourself become closed minded and
> hidebound.

There is nothing "open minded" about letting legally unsound stuff
into the Emacs code base.  This had been done previously, and it was a
real mess to get it sorted out after problems occured.

The GPL and other legal papers exist for a reason, unfortunately.  One
can't avoid having to deal with the legal system.

> After all, the existing Emacs icons are pretty damned dated and
> sorely in need of a facelift.

But supporting a facelift that is permanently restricted (due to legal
reasons) to users of a proprietary system is not what the GNU project
is about.

One would imagine that people had learnt something from the XEmacs
fork.  Unfortunately, they are willing to do the same mistakes all
over again.  But they should be aware that this is neither in the name
nor in the interest of either the GNU project or free software.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>>After all, the existing Emacs icons are pretty damned dated and
>>sorely in need of a facelift.
>>  
>>
> But there is a decision on new icons. Pleas look at
> http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EmacsIcons

Many of those are very nice, and I like the final choice.  However, I
believe that the OP was looking for upgrades for the toolbar icons,
which are a bit behind the times in terms of sophistication and not
all that intuitive in some cases.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>>After all, the existing Emacs icons are pretty damned dated and
>>>sorely in need of a facelift.
>>>  
>>>
>> But there is a decision on new icons. Pleas look at
>> http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EmacsIcons
>
> Many of those are very nice, and I like the final choice.  However, I
> believe that the OP was looking for upgrades for the toolbar icons,
> which are a bit behind the times in terms of sophistication and not
> all that intuitive in some cases.

It is hard to see why it would be desirable to fix this only for
MacOSX, a proprietary system, and then only for a single particular
port of it.

The people shouting "you should be glad that people make improvements
to free software" make as much sense as people who think democracy is
somehow served by people exercising their freedom to vote by voting
for parties seeking to abolish democracy.

That is confusing cart and horse: it is the essence of freedom that
you _can_ choose even non-freedom.  But if too many actually do so,
the freedom is lost.

The GNU project stands up for your right to create your own forks of
software if you so desire.  But that does not mean that exercising
that right is automatically a good thing.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>
>>>>After all, the existing Emacs icons are pretty damned dated and
>>>>sorely in need of a facelift.
>>>>  
>>>>
>>> But there is a decision on new icons. Pleas look at
>>> http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EmacsIcons
>>
>> Many of those are very nice, and I like the final choice.  However,
>> I believe that the OP was looking for upgrades for the toolbar
>> icons, which are a bit behind the times in terms of sophistication
>> and not all that intuitive in some cases.
>
> It is hard to see why it would be desirable to fix this only for
> MacOSX, a proprietary system, and then only for a single particular
> port of it.

Jeez, dude.  Drink a little less coffee.  Take a deep breath.  Go for
a walk.  Un-knot your undies.  And stop insulting everybody in sight.
Whatever.

<snipped rest of intemperate rant>

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Jay Belanger]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
...
> Jeez, dude.  Drink a little less coffee.  Take a deep breath.  Go for
> a walk.  Un-knot your undies.  And stop insulting everybody in sight.
> Whatever.
>
> <snipped rest of intemperate rant>

Hardly an intemperate rant; it was thoughtful explanation of why
improvements to Emacs should be made with at least the possibility of
helping all Emacs users.  Feel free to disagree, but don't pretend it's
something it's not.

Jay

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[david.reitter]

David Kastrup wrote:

> David Reitter has explicitly stated that he will not bother making
> sure that the material with which he is enhancing Aquamacs has the
> required paperwork done.

Sorry, that's not my job and not where I'm competent. Here's how
Google's Eric Schmidt put it: "Programmers want to program, they don't
want to do their laundry." What I can do is to make sure that the
source is documented and the necessary paperwork can be obtained in
case the Emacs project accepts some of the icons. The FSF is competent
at this stuff, and I'm glad they're doing it.

Anyways, the fact that we don't have paperwork for everything in
Aquamacs doesn't make it less free and projects without the legal
infrastructure aren't any less honourable (just less complete -- but
we're unpaid volunteers, so please don't complain). And since we're
doing this for mainly altruistic reasons (and fun), please consider
that if you require everyone -  even downstream projects - to maintain
infrastructure, you will lose developers and maintainers. You remember
that you lost a dedicated maintainer for exactly that reason, don't you?

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

david.reitter@gmail.com writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> David Reitter has explicitly stated that he will not bother making
>> sure that the material with which he is enhancing Aquamacs has the
>> required paperwork done.
>
> Sorry, that's not my job and not where I'm competent. Here's how
> Google's Eric Schmidt put it: "Programmers want to program, they
> don't want to do their laundry."

But they also don't want to be bothered by cockroaches breeding in the
laundry that is left on the floor to rot.

> What I can do is to make sure that the source is documented and the
> necessary paperwork can be obtained in case the Emacs project
> accepts some of the icons.  The FSF is competent at this stuff, and
> I'm glad they're doing it.
>
> Anyways, the fact that we don't have paperwork for everything in
> Aquamacs doesn't make it less free

Nonsense.  It means that an employer of some contributor who just did
not believe his contract terms valid, or an infringed party because of
someone who thought "creative commons license is good enough for
borrowing" can send you a cease-and-desist order prohibiting further
distribution.  And that certainly qualifies for "less free".  The
freedom needs to be dependable.

> and projects without the legal infrastructure aren't any less
> honourable (just less complete -- but we're unpaid volunteers, so
> please don't complain).

I completely disagree.  Making use of an upstream project without
bothering to resubmit improvements, trying to recruit developers for
only improving your own branch, and not being bothered about this ever
being possible to be folded back into the main project has _nothing_
at all to do with being honorable.  It is at best neutral.  It does
not benefit upstream, and since it detracts developers from
contributing upstream, actually is damaging.

> And since we're doing this for mainly altruistic reasons (and fun),
> please consider that if you require everyone - even downstream
> projects - to maintain infrastructure, you will lose developers and
> maintainers. You remember that you lost a dedicated maintainer for
> exactly that reason, don't you?

Well, did you look at a copyright assignment contract?  You agree in
writing that you will be held accountable for any monetary damages
occuring because you misstated the legal state of software you
contributed.  That is a responsibility and a burden.  Of _course_ this
is a barrier for contributors.

But you are trying to shoot the messenger.  The FSF has not written
the copyright laws that make this sort of thing necessary.  The FSF
has not the deep pockets of, say, IBM who can afford to get sued by a
party like the SCO group, in a lawsuit dragging on for years without
end.  And that's the kind of shit you have to be prepared for if you
don't keep copyright accountable in one hand.  Even _if_ nobody
actually made the mistake of contributing what he was not allowed to.

Copyright laws and litigation don't go away if you close your eyes and
shout "lalala I can't hear you".  Yes, this will put off developers
who would otherwise choose to contribute.  And no, it still is not
possible to avoid.

What I find disturbing:

a) changes are made downstream without bothering to try to get them
into upstream.  Working upstream may be quite more aggravating and
frustrating, but _that's_ where one contributes back.  Making use of
the freedom to fork a project is convenient and proves that freedom is
something nice to have.  But it does not increase the value of the
freedom, only documents it.

b) and now you are trying to make people work on Aquamacs improvements
that _clearly_ would be relevant on all platforms, instead of trying
to recruit people for doing the work _upstream_ that you would like to
have done.  And that clearly is not cooperative, so talking about "not
less honorable" in this context is empty words.

c) you say that you can't be bothered with legal details, other
contributors shouldn't, and that the FSF should worry about that
itself if at some time the work for which you try to attract
developers away from Emacs would be desirable to be integrated back.
>From what you wrote, it does not appear like you'd be interested in
complete records of all sources of icons and their respective
copyright holders.

That means, in addition to choosing to be of no help to Emacs right
now, you are laying the groundworks of not being able to change the
situation should you reconsider about contributing at a later point of
time.

The situation of a platform-specific enhancement with an "open" stance
towards developers and paperwork and no priority for upstream is not
new.  It's XEmacs all over again, and the price for all involved
parties has been hefty and caused wagonloads of work unusable for lots
of people in both directions.  The resulting duplication of labor had
a much more severe impact on the development of both systems than the
scare factor of paperwork ever had.

Yes, having to bother with legal stuff takes its toll.  But it's not
an invention of the FSF who certainly would prefer a world without
copyright, and the "alternative" of not bothering takes a much higher
toll in the long run.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[david.reitter]

> From what you wrote, it does not appear like you'd be interested in
> complete records of all sources of icons and their respective
> copyright holders.

I call bull. I've stated time and again that such a list (with
pointers, not agreements) is to be kept.

I consider our little project nowhere near as important and big as
XEmacs, and any comparison is out of question. The other crucial
difference is that we're syncing with Emacs CVS rather than developing
a fork, and we intend to keep it that way.

Thirdly, it's simply untrue that developments aren't contributed back.
Those that I consider worthwhile I supply myself (and anything else is
publicly available and may be taken at leisure). Examples include
revised modifier key configuration in the Carbon port and a new package
for send-mail (mailclient). But you will appreciate that it's
technically much easier for us to write packages and patches in the
context of Aquamacs, where we're not cross-platform. Most of the added
features can't be integrated at this stage anyways.

Lastly, I've found many friendly and cooperative people among those
responsible for the development, and it's exciting to contribute. But
where the tone changes to become downright negative, just because one's
perspective e.g. on user interfaces differs, well, then I can't be
arsed to fight for stuff to be included, as the brits say.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

david.reitter@gmail.com writes:

> I consider our little project nowhere near as important and big as
> XEmacs, and any comparison is out of question.

XEmacs started off nowhere as important and big at some time.

> The other crucial difference is that we're syncing with Emacs CVS
> rather than developing a fork, and we intend to keep it that way.

XEmacs is syncing with Emacs regularly.  It has become prohibitively
costly by now, and I don't think it likely that they will synch again
generally before Emacs 22.1.

> Thirdly, it's simply untrue that developments aren't contributed
> back.  Those that I consider worthwhile I supply myself (and
> anything else is publicly available and may be taken at
> leisure).

The whole assignment stuff is about accountability.  You can't hold
someone accountable for something you took "at leisure".

It's really XEmacs all over again, no lessons learnt.

Pity.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
> ...
>> Jeez, dude.  Drink a little less coffee.  Take a deep breath.  Go
>> for a walk.  Un-knot your undies.  And stop insulting everybody in
>> sight.  Whatever.
>>
>> <snipped rest of intemperate rant>
>
> Hardly an intemperate rant; it was thoughtful explanation of why
> improvements to Emacs should be made with at least the possibility
> of helping all Emacs users.  Feel free to disagree, but don't
> pretend it's something it's not.

I don't disagree in principle.  Free software in the GNU/FSF sense is
vitally important IMHO.  The uncalled-for tetchiness is what bothers
me.  Perhaps David K did not mean to sound grumpy and rude, but he
certainly came across that way.

If proponents of free software ever expect to have their products in
the mainstream and not just the province of geeks, then they had
better learn the value of good customer service, and of good interface
design and human useability.  And we might as well treat each other
with civility rather than disdain as a good way to develop that
attitude.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> If proponents of free software ever expect to have their products in
> the mainstream and not just the province of geeks, then they had
> better

Why should I be bothered about the mainstream?  Why should I applaud
moves that focus improving software only on non-free systems?  There
is absolutely nothing for me in that.

I have nothing to gain from my software being useful only to
mainstream users of proprietary systems, and so I certainly not at all
"had better" do anything in order to have people working on stuff that
is of no benefit for me.

> learn the value of good customer service, and of good interface
> design and human useability.

If you want to place demands on software developers, you better offer
some recompensation.  Other than that, you get what they are in the
mood to deliver.

> And we might as well treat each other with civility rather than
> disdain as a good way to develop that attitude.

Feel free to do so.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> If proponents of free software ever expect to have their products
>> in the mainstream and not just the province of geeks, then they had
>> better
>
> Why should I be bothered about the mainstream?  Why should I applaud
> moves that focus improving software only on non-free systems?  There
> is absolutely nothing for me in that.

IMHO that is a narrow and self-centered viewpoint.  Fortunately there
are other viewpoints that include thinking more broadly about trying
to increase freedom rather than burying one's head in the sand and
capitulating.  I'd be very disappointed if that was the official
attitude of the GNU project!

> I have nothing to gain from my software being useful only to
> mainstream users of proprietary systems, and so I certainly not at
> all "had better" do anything in order to have people working on
> stuff that is of no benefit for me.

Increasing freedom in software is not of use to you?  You astonish
me.  Really.  What a myopic view from someone I would have expected
to think more broadly.

Think of it as developing a feeder network.  If Mac users or Windows
users find good useful free software, that may well lead them further
into the free software movement.  They may begin to question the
stranglehold that non-free software can create, and come to understand
that there are alternatives.  

If on the other hand that software is arcane and Byzantine and
difficult to use, then they will be discouraged and will go on buying
propreatary systems.  And the hardware makers will have no incentive
to make it easier to write free software for their platform, which in
turn increases the difficulty and cost of reverse-engineering for the
hardware.

But with good free alternatives, we might see companies such as Dell
offering more computers with those free alternatives.  But for that to
happen, a market has to be created that's based on more than hype and
Slashdot.  The free products themselves have to be good to use-
stable, fast, powerful with a useable interface.

Because everything in the world is connected to and affects everything
else, increasing freedom for others increases freedom for ourselves.
In your posts you seem to have lost that basic awareness of "what goes
around, comes around."  I'm sorry to see that, because that attitude
could ultimately lead to the failure of the free software movement.

>> learn the value of good customer service, and of good interface
>> design and human useability.
>
> If you want to place demands on software developers, you better
> offer some recompensation.  Other than that, you get what they are
> in the mood to deliver.

In that case, the free software movement will remain marginalized and
will have little or no influence in the tide of affairs.  If it's
worth writing code for, it's worth writing good code and attending to
the user experience.

I use a Mac.  I'm not apologizing for it nor am I going to let someone
make me feel like I'm doing something wrong.  I've yet to find a
GNU/Linux or BSD system that is as good to use as OS X.  I make a
point of using free software published under the GPL as much as I can,
because the freedom afforded thus is important.  I've financially
supported GNU, since I do not have the skills to offer support in
terms of software development.  There are a lot of people like me, and
you want to keep us interested in free-as-in-speech software.
Otherwise it's just a circle jerk.

>> And we might as well treat each other with civility rather than
>> disdain as a good way to develop that attitude.
>
> Feel free to do so.

Good point.  I hope that I have.  Civility doesn't mean agreement.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Jay Belanger]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
...
>> Why should I be bothered about the mainstream?  Why should I applaud
>> moves that focus improving software only on non-free systems?  There
>> is absolutely nothing for me in that.
>
> IMHO that is a narrow and self-centered viewpoint.  Fortunately there
> are other viewpoints that include thinking more broadly about trying
> to increase freedom rather than burying one's head in the sand and
> capitulating.

Huh?  Capitulating to what?
Are you suggesting that improving software only on non-free systems is
trying to increase freedom?  I would think it's closer to the opposite.

> I'd be very disappointed if that was the official attitude of the
> GNU project!

I'd be surprised if it weren't.

>> I have nothing to gain from my software being useful only to
>> mainstream users of proprietary systems, and so I certainly not at
>> all "had better" do anything in order to have people working on
>> stuff that is of no benefit for me.
>
> Increasing freedom in software is not of use to you?

Are we reading the same thing?  How do you go from not caring about
something useful only to users of proprietary systems to not caring
about increasing software freedom?

> Think of it as developing a feeder network.  If Mac users or Windows
> users find good useful free software, that may well lead them further
> into the free software movement.
...
> If on the other hand that software is arcane and Byzantine and
> difficult to use, then they will be discouraged and will go on buying
> propreatary systems.

Having good useful free software on Mac and Windows and Byzantine and
difficult to use free software on free systems might get users to use
some free software, but would otherwise encourage them to go on buying
proprietary systems and so would limit how far they went into the free
software movement.  For people who to whom the free software movement
is important, improvements to the Mac and/or Windows version which
cannot be folded back into the main version would not be a good thing,
it would seem.

Jay

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>>
>>> If proponents of free software ever expect to have their products
>>> in the mainstream and not just the province of geeks, then they had
>>> better
>>
>> Why should I be bothered about the mainstream?  Why should I applaud
>> moves that focus improving software only on non-free systems?  There
>> is absolutely nothing for me in that.
>
> IMHO that is a narrow and self-centered viewpoint.  Fortunately there
> are other viewpoints that include thinking more broadly about trying
> to increase freedom rather than burying one's head in the sand and
> capitulating.

The words of a MacOSX user that applauds moves that disregard anybody
except MacOSX users.  I doubt it gets any narrower and self-centered
than that.

> I'd be very disappointed if that was the official attitude of the
> GNU project!

Of course the official attitude of the GNU project is to promote free
software, and free systems.  It has always been that, right from the
beginning.

That you greed after software that can't be used on free systems and
promote not bothering about free systems does not change that.

It is not uncommon to confuse freedom with unfettered egoism in our
society.

But the important part of freedom is not the freedom to take.  It is
the freedom to give and cooperate.  And that is what the GNU project
has been about from the start.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[david.reitter]

Jay Belanger:

> For people who to whom the free software movement
> is important, improvements to the Mac and/or Windows version which
> cannot be folded back into the main version would not be a good thing,
> it would seem.

I don't think we disagree. But my thinking is that having free software
with a high degree of usability at least on a partially proprietary
system (such as Mac OS X) is better than having the less "lickable"
interface at all, i.e. on no system. So the technique is to develop
stuff on the partially proprietary system and port it to the
ideologically less questionable free system. Of course, we'll do so in
a way that doesn't preclude us from porting it back, even though we
won't do all the work right now (e.g. legal business). Anything else
has only been alledged by other participants in this discussion.

How far people want to go with this port is their business. As long as
I'm not getting paid for it, I said, hey, happy to do development work,
happy to document sources, but not happy to push various people to sign
certain contracts and not happy to accept technologically inferior
solutions just because they aren't available for all operating systems
yet. People draw the line at some point, and we all need to respect
that. I've had a dozen people tell me in the past year that they can't
contribute or can't contribute more because they don't have time. My
initial collaborator had to bail out because he's got kids, wife, and a
business and these things simply had priority. You have to accept that,
say thanks for your help and your contribution, and move on. Reacting
with hostility just because someone isn't willing to contribute
further, or contribute all that the ideology behind the organization
providing this mailing list requires will only make matters worse.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

david.reitter@gmail.com writes:

> Jay Belanger:
>
>> For people who to whom the free software movement
>> is important, improvements to the Mac and/or Windows version which
>> cannot be folded back into the main version would not be a good thing,
>> it would seem.
>
> I don't think we disagree. But my thinking is that having free software
> with a high degree of usability at least on a partially proprietary
> system (such as Mac OS X) is better than having the less "lickable"
> interface at all, i.e. on no system.

With that stance, free software would have never taken off, since it
started out, naturally, as being inferior to existing proprietary
solutions.  Only people that value freedom above convenience will ever
carry the torch so far that at one point one need no longer choose
between the two.

> So the technique is to develop stuff on the partially proprietary
> system and port it to the ideologically less questionable free
> system. Of course, we'll do so in a way that doesn't preclude us
> from porting it back, even though we won't do all the work right now
> (e.g. legal business).

Exactly what happened with XEmacs.  Getting assignments gets
exponentially harder with time.  As people get less interested in
former projects, they can't be bothered with footwork like that.

You are afraid to scare off developers with copyright assignments when
they are actively helping to scratch their itch, and think that they
will do so with pleasure when they have no ties to the project
anymore?

Get real.  You are headed for permanent forking for the sake of a
non-free platform.  It's the privilege of history to go unheeded.

> Anything else has only been alledged by other participants in this
> discussion.

Alleged?  Actually, I thought I was being rather blunt about this.

> How far people want to go with this port is their business. As long
> as I'm not getting paid for it, I said, hey, happy to do development
> work, happy to document sources, but not happy to push various
> people to sign certain contracts and not happy to accept
> technologically inferior solutions just because they aren't
> available for all operating systems yet.

> People draw the line at some point, and we all need to respect
> that.

Sure.  Your line is drawn at a position where it does not help free
software, and it looks like you are headed in a direction where it
will become impossible that this changes.

You are free to draw the line there for yourself, and I am free to
call the line by its name.

> I've had a dozen people tell me in the past year that they can't
> contribute or can't contribute more because they don't have time. My
> initial collaborator had to bail out because he's got kids, wife,
> and a business and these things simply had priority. You have to
> accept that, say thanks for your help and your contribution, and
> move on.

And you'll think that a few years later those people will sign legal
papers?  Very likely.

A lot of multi-person projects have sunken into oblivion because past
contributors changed their mind, could not be brought around, or even
contacted anymore.  Suddenly a developer dies: what will you write to
the inheritors to convince them that it would have been the wish of
the deceased to make this software freely available?  When he did not
bother catering for it while he lived?

Yes, the necessity of paperwork has killed projects.  But many more
projects ended in a dead end because people bothered too late about
it.

> Reacting with hostility just because someone isn't willing to
> contribute further, or contribute all that the ideology behind the
> organization providing this mailing list requires will only make
> matters worse.

You are confusing hostility with bluntness.

If you doubt my opinion, ask on the Emacs developer list how good an
idea they think it if you work on improving the icons in Aquamacs only
without heeding the requirements for upstream Emacs.

Or ask on an appropriate internal GNU mailing list whether people
consider this a helpful course for free software in general.

You are free to draw your line there.  But it helps nobody to pretend
it is somewhere else.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> If proponents of free software ever expect to have their products
>>>> in the mainstream and not just the province of geeks, then they
>>>> had better
>>>
>>> Why should I be bothered about the mainstream?  Why should I
>>> applaud moves that focus improving software only on non-free
>>> systems?  There is absolutely nothing for me in that.
>>
>> IMHO that is a narrow and self-centered viewpoint.  Fortunately
>> there are other viewpoints that include thinking more broadly about
>> trying to increase freedom rather than burying one's head in the
>> sand and capitulating.
>
> The words of a MacOSX user that applauds moves that disregard
> anybody except MacOSX users.  I doubt it gets any narrower and
> self-centered than that.

Once again distorting what other people say in order to "prove" your
point.  It's classic Usenet polemic, but invalid all the same.

>> I'd be very disappointed if that was the official attitude of the
>> GNU project!
>
> Of course the official attitude of the GNU project is to promote
> free software, and free systems.  It has always been that, right
> from the beginning.

Your attitude, unfortunately, is in opposition to that.  You seem to
be working very hard on creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.  There
are two sides to every story, even though you seem unwilling to grasp
this simple fact.  GNU's approach is not perfect and contributed to
the XEmacs fork; you seem to be trying to singlehandedly replicate
those errors in the case of Aquamacs.

> That you greed after software that can't be used on free systems and
> promote not bothering about free systems does not change that.

Oh, stop twisting and distorting what other people write so that you
can remain righteous.  Sheesh.

> It is not uncommon to confuse freedom with unfettered egoism in our
> society.
>
> But the important part of freedom is not the freedom to take.  It is
> the freedom to give and cooperate.  And that is what the GNU project
> has been about from the start.

It's too bad that you are determined to be narrow minded and utterly
convinced of your rightness, and fail to be willing to look beyond
your narrow world view.  It's also a poor reflection on gnu.org that
you are determined to denigrate and insult anyone who has the temerity
to disagree with you.  Dogmatism is never pretty and almost never
results in progress.

Attitudes like yours do nothing but damage the free software movement
and will result in it being little more than a footnote in computer
history.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> It's too bad that you are determined to be narrow minded and utterly
> convinced of your rightness, and fail to be willing to look beyond
> your narrow world view.  It's also a poor reflection on gnu.org that
> you are determined to denigrate and insult anyone who has the
> temerity to disagree with you.

Try to find a single insult in my writing.

> Dogmatism is never pretty and almost never results in progress.
>
> Attitudes like yours do nothing but damage the free software
> movement and will result in it being little more than a footnote in
> computer history.

Unfortunately, history has time and again shown that only those that
bother about the pesky details of freedom will ultimately prevail with
it.

It is no accident that the "dogmatic" GPL covers about 90% of all free
software.  Richard Stallman is by far the most-denigrated person in
the whole free software movement, and it is not always easy or
pleasurable to work with him.  Yet the values he has been creating and
inspiring will carry on after him, and part of the reason is that he
always bothers about the additional 10 yards that it takes to ensure
this.

Wishful thinking alone never cuts it in the real world.

The ability to craft a pretty MacOSX-only thing from Emacs is part of
the value of free software.  Doing so exercises the freedom, but it
does nothing to sustain it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Chong Yidong]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

>>> IMHO that is a narrow and self-centered viewpoint.  Fortunately
>>> there are other viewpoints that include thinking more broadly about
>>> trying to increase freedom rather than burying one's head in the
>>> sand and capitulating.
>>
>> The words of a MacOSX user that applauds moves that disregard
>> anybody except MacOSX users.  I doubt it gets any narrower and
>> self-centered than that.
>
> Once again distorting what other people say in order to "prove" your
> point.  It's classic Usenet polemic, but invalid all the same.

You were the guy that diverted this thread off on a tangent by
complaining about David having a "bug in his britches" or whatever.
And when he made the perfectly reasonable point that it's better to
contribute to Emacs than a downstream repackaging project, you ignored
that and started talking about how his hostile attitude was hurting
free software, etc., etc., etc.

Please.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Luis O. Silva]

Hi,

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:59:49 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:

   TM> I use a Mac.  I'm not apologizing for it nor am I going
   TM> to let someone make me feel like I'm doing something
   TM> wrong.

I invite you to apologize and repent of your sin. This is the
place for doing it, son. :)

   TM> I've yet to find a GNU/Linux or BSD system that
   TM> is as good to use as OS X.

It's not a matter of how well something works. The only way to
go is that of freedom.

   TM> I've financially supported GNU, since I do not have the
   TM> skills to offer support in terms of software
   TM> development.

That help is important, but what we need _much_ more is a
change in your mind. I invite you to see beyond the obvious
and immediate things. You don't need to be a software
developer, you can do many things with your attitude.

Best regards,
luis

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Lennart Borgman]

David Kastrup wrote:

>The ability to craft a pretty MacOSX-only thing from Emacs is part of
>the value of free software.  Doing so exercises the freedom, but it
>does nothing to sustain it.
>  
>
In a sense you are right, but I wonder if this is really true. I think 
it is important to be very careful here. Can you for sure say that the 
last sentence is true?

 From my perspective I doubt it. I have to use proprietary software 
(read Windows) in my job. It is quite hard for me to be able to use 
Emacs for example since it has been so very difficult to install and 
setup on Windows. I have tried to change this by making it easier to 
install and setup Emacs on Windows, not only for me but for others too. 
This is Windows only since that is the only reasonable way to do it on 
Windows.

I believe this sustains the freedom of free software. It is 
questionable, but I would hardly be doing what I have done if I did not 
think so. My reasoning is that this makes it possible for more people to 
learn to use Emacs and this is of great value when working on different 
platforms. In other words: This makes it easer to switch from MS Windows 
to GNU/Linux or the reverse. However here is an important point: Think 
of this as a kind of osmosis. There are far more people today that can 
switch from MS Windows to GNU/Linux than the reverse. Lessening the 
barrier will then (maybe) help to switch to GNU/Linux.

There is also another reason to do work for proprietary platforms like 
Windows. The main part of the work is done on GNU/Linux - at least that 
is what I believe. This means that we do not sometimes have enough 
knowledge or people to get things working on Windows. For example 
currently emacsserver/client does not work on Windows for CVS Emacs. 
This has been known for several months to be a problem (but there is a 
workaround using gnuserv/client), but nobody has had enough time to 
solve it yet.

There are more examples, but that is unimportant here. I just wanted to 
say that it can be very important to do work on the proprietary 
platforms too.

There are a lot of hurt feelings in this thread and most sane people 
probably stay out. I am however the optimistic type (a type that often 
gets hurt ;-). Can we please try to find the important positive points 
from all people here? BTW is there maybe a useful page on EmacsWiki for 
summarizing things?

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>The ability to craft a pretty MacOSX-only thing from Emacs is part of
>>the value of free software.  Doing so exercises the freedom, but it
>>does nothing to sustain it.
>>
> In a sense you are right, but I wonder if this is really true. I
> think it is important to be very careful here. Can you for sure say
> that the last sentence is true?

The point is "MacOSX-only".  We are not talking about a working port
to MaxOSX, but an extended feature set which is restricted to benefit
only MacOSX users in spite of not being a MacOSX-specific feature.

We are talking about a call for volunteers to replace inferior icons,
but this is intended to be only done on MacOSX, and in a manner that
precludes this work being integrated into the main Emacs.

And yes, I believe that this does nothing to sustain free software.

>  From my perspective I doubt it.

Your perspective does not apply to this case.

>  I have to use proprietary software (read Windows) in my job. It is
>  quite hard for me to be able to use Emacs for example since it has
>  been so very difficult to install and setup on Windows. I have
>  tried to change this by making it easier to install and setup Emacs
>  on Windows, not only for me but for others too. This is Windows
>  only since that is the only reasonable way to do it on Windows.

Sure.  That is porting work: making available on Windows what is
available elsewhere.

> I believe this sustains the freedom of free software. It is
> questionable, but I would hardly be doing what I have done if I did
> not think so. My reasoning is that this makes it possible for more
> people to learn to use Emacs and this is of great value when working
> on different platforms. In other words: This makes it easer to
> switch from MS Windows to GNU/Linux or the reverse.

Correct.  But the work that I have been criticising was intended to
make it _harder_ to switch from MacOSX to GNU/Linux, by providing
features only for MacOSX.

> However here is an important point: Think of this as a kind of
> osmosis. There are far more people today that can switch from MS
> Windows to GNU/Linux than the reverse. Lessening the barrier will
> then (maybe) help to switch to GNU/Linux.

But the work I was talking about is increasing the barrier, not
lessening it.  And without good reason I can see.  Emacs is available
as a technically and legally reliable starting point for developments
like Aquamacs precisely because others bothered enough to dedicate and
assign their own work to the FSF, making sure that no conflicting
claims could be construed.

I can't see how you can consider it the same whether a particular
proprietary platform gets supported in the main CVS of Emacs, or
whether a fork for MacOSX-only gets divergent features that can't be
used upstream.

> There are more examples, but that is unimportant here. I just wanted
> to say that it can be very important to do work on the proprietary
> platforms too.

But we are talking here about forking a port to a proprietary
platform, and improving only the fork in areas which would benefit the
main version as well.

> There are a lot of hurt feelings in this thread and most sane people
> probably stay out.

I don't see hurt feelings (the only one getting personal instead of
focusing on the facts in this thread was Tim, but nobody took him up
on that).  I see quite opposed viewpoints.

There is no law against differing views, but I take the liberty of
putting forth my case such as I feel necessary.  It is not like the
case of a fork with conflicting legal standards for the purpose of
platform-specific enhancements is new.  That's what started XEmacs.

> I am however the optimistic type (a type that often gets hurt
> ;-). Can we please try to find the important positive points from
> all people here?

Well, the important point from me: if you value free software, try
working on it in a manner that helps everybody, not just yourself or
the users of a non-free system.

There is a difference between making Emacs available for proprietary
systems (which makes it easier for people to switch from proprietary
to free systems), and improving it for proprietary systems only (which
makes it harder for people to switch from proprietary to free
systems).

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Lennart Borgman]

David Kastrup wrote:

>Correct.  But the work that I have been criticising was intended to
>make it _harder_ to switch from MacOSX to GNU/Linux, by providing
>features only for MacOSX.
>  
>
Thanks. If you see it this way then I understand what you write. It is 
however still a bit difficult whether some things that can not be made 
portable at the moment really makes it harder to switch. (Please excuse 
me if I am drifting off a bit here. I do that to be more clear.) Suppose 
those things makes Emacs more acceptable on that particular proprietary 
platform. Suppose also that those things depends on OS features that 
does not yet exist on GNU/Linux. Is it in the long run then better to 
provide those things on the proprietary platform or not?

To me the answer is not self evident. Providing this "things" could in 
the long run make a pressure on GNU/Linux to provide them too. I have 
the feeling that this could be the case for some things in the GUI for 
example. (Last time I tried GNU/Linux I dropped it partly because I did 
not understand how to use the keyboard for all tasks. I never use mouse 
if I can avoid it: For sure I want to try again, but I want that "thing" 
to be implemented in GNU/Linux - in a manner that I should not have to 
relearn. That is me of course, but I suspect there are more persons like 
me in that respect.)

>I don't see hurt feelings (the only one getting personal instead of
>focusing on the facts in this thread was Tim, but nobody took him up
>on that).  I see quite opposed viewpoints.
>  
>
You have to search for the feelings. But it is very good if this can be 
seen as opposing viewpoints.

>There is a difference between making Emacs available for proprietary
>systems (which makes it easier for people to switch from proprietary
>to free systems), and improving it for proprietary systems only (which
>makes it harder for people to switch from proprietary to free
>systems).
>  
>
You are right. But I want to add that improving it for GNU/Linux only 
also can make it harder for people to switch from proprietary to free 
systems. I guess you agree, but I still want to make it clear since I 
think it is a very important point too.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

"Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:59:49 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:
>
>    TM> I use a Mac.  I'm not apologizing for it nor am I going
>    TM> to let someone make me feel like I'm doing something
>    TM> wrong.
>
> I invite you to apologize and repent of your sin. This is the
> place for doing it, son. :)

Hee hee.  Not gonna happen.

>    TM> I've yet to find a GNU/Linux or BSD system that
>    TM> is as good to use as OS X.
>
> It's not a matter of how well something works. The only way to
> go is that of freedom.

How well software works is a central issue in getting people to use
it.  If the Free Software movement is content to have a limited market
and minimal adoption, well that can't be helped.

My computer is a tool.  I need it to just work, I need it to be
reliable, and I need it to be easily useable.  In short, I don't have
time to edit .conf files.

>    TM> I've financially supported GNU, since I do not have the
>    TM> skills to offer support in terms of software
>    TM> development.
>
> That help is important, but what we need _much_ more is a
> change in your mind. I invite you to see beyond the obvious
> and immediate things. You don't need to be a software
> developer, you can do many things with your attitude.

I do see those things.  I just disagree with David K's hostility and
castigation of others.  What the free software movement doesn't seem
to grasp is that one of the things that counts is useability- both in
terms of the relationship between software and user, but also the
relationships between contributors and maintainers.  If you alienate
people, they just go away and stop using/contributing to your
software.  The implied "oh well, good riddance" is an attitude that is
the kiss of death.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>Correct.  But the work that I have been criticising was intended to
>>make it _harder_ to switch from MacOSX to GNU/Linux, by providing
>>features only for MacOSX.
>
> Thanks. If you see it this way then I understand what you write. It
> is however still a bit difficult whether some things that can not be
> made portable at the moment really makes it harder to
> switch. (Please excuse me if I am drifting off a bit here. I do that
> to be more clear.) Suppose those things makes Emacs more acceptable
> on that particular proprietary platform. Suppose also that those
> things depends on OS features that does not yet exist on
> GNU/Linux.

Please.  We were talking about the standard toolbar icons here which
are the same on all platforms.  Those are obviously in need of
improvement, and David asked for volunteers to improve them
exclusively for the use of Aquamacs (since he made quite clear that he
was not going to bother about the legal requirements necessary for the
mainline).

So you are obviously discussing something different here.  I'll give
my opinion on your questions nevertheless, but they are not directly
relevant to the case in question.

> Is it in the long run then better to provide those things on the
> proprietary platform or not?

Better for who?

> To me the answer is not self evident. Providing this "things" could
> in the long run make a pressure on GNU/Linux to provide them too.

What is good about pressure?  Pressure does not resolve itself
magically without somebody actually having to work on it.  If some
functionality is worth working on it, it will be so without artificial
pressure to mimic a proprietary system.

> I have the feeling that this could be the case for some things in
> the GUI for example. (Last time I tried GNU/Linux I dropped it
> partly because I did not understand how to use the keyboard for all
> tasks. I never use mouse if I can avoid it: For sure I want to try
> again, but I want that "thing" to be implemented in GNU/Linux - in a
> manner that I should not have to relearn. That is me of course, but
> I suspect there are more persons like me in that respect.)

Basically it is a matter of which window manager you use.  There are
some of them explicitly designed for mouse avoidance.

>>There is a difference between making Emacs available for proprietary
>>systems (which makes it easier for people to switch from proprietary
>>to free systems), and improving it for proprietary systems only
>>(which makes it harder for people to switch from proprietary to free
>>systems).
>
> You are right. But I want to add that improving it for GNU/Linux
> only also can make it harder for people to switch from proprietary
> to free systems.

But this is not what the case is about at all.  I find it disengenuous
to put forth an argument like "it is ok to improve generally desirable
Emacs features only on a specific MacOSX port, because improving
generally desirable features only on GNU/Linux could be a bad idea,
too".

There are priorities involved here: when the available resources don't
permit equal treatment of all platforms, free platforms will get
prefered treatment.  For example, Emacs 21.x was released with a
display engine that could not support images and toolbars under
Windows and MacOSX, but did so under X11.  It was simply not possible
to get all platforms done in time.  This situation has been amended
since then: the respective ports are up to par, and this is a good
thing.  Though not as important as that the X11 and GTK ports are up
to par.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Lennart Borgman]

David Kastrup wrote:

>Better for who?
>  
>
In this context: Promote free software. Sorry if I was unclear.

>  
>
>>To me the answer is not self evident. Providing this "things" could
>>in the long run make a pressure on GNU/Linux to provide them too.
>>    
>>
>
>What is good about pressure?  Pressure does not resolve itself
>magically without somebody actually having to work on it.  If some
>functionality is worth working on it, it will be so without artificial
>pressure to mimic a proprietary system.
>  
>
Excuse my bad wording/english. This is of course just a 
misunderstanding. Without someone explicitly or implicitly asking for a 
feature nothing will happen either.

>Basically it is a matter of which window manager you use.  There are
>some of them explicitly designed for mouse avoidance.
>  
>
Thanks, but I want them all to help me with this. It is a matter of 
accessibility for many people.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> "Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:59:49 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:
>>
>>    TM> I've yet to find a GNU/Linux or BSD system that
>>    TM> is as good to use as OS X.
>>
>> It's not a matter of how well something works. The only way to
>> go is that of freedom.
>
> How well software works is a central issue in getting people to use
> it.

It is a secondary consideration for free software.  The primary
motivator is freedom.  If it weren't, free software would not exist,
since the beginnings of free software were almost necessarily
technically inferior to proprietary offerings.  Free software owes its
existence to its freedoms, not its usefulness.  If you sacrifice the
freedom for the sake of usefulness, you'll lose both in the end.

> If the Free Software movement is content to have a limited market
> and minimal adoption, well that can't be helped.

Restricting generally useful features to MacOSX only is limiting
market and adoption.

You are actually making my case without realizing it, because you
don't look beyond your favorite platform, the proprietary MacOSX.  But
the free software movement never was about promoting and improving
MacOSX.  It is about promoting and improving free software.

> My computer is a tool.  I need it to just work, I need it to be
> reliable, and I need it to be easily useable.  In short, I don't
> have time to edit .conf files.

Completely irrelevant.

> I do see those things.  I just disagree with David K's hostility and
> castigation of others.

You disagree with hearing things you consider inconvenient for your
private goals.  Tough.  It is a perfectly valid viewpoint for you to
be interested only in MacOSX and ignoring any other aspects of free
software.  But that viewpoint does not help promote free software at
all.  You have, of course, no obligation to promote the cause that has
made the software possible that you are using.  But there is little
point in pretending something different.

> What the free software movement doesn't seem to grasp is that one of
> the things that counts is useability- both in terms of the
> relationship between software and user, but also the relationships
> between contributors and maintainers.  If you alienate people, they
> just go away and stop using/contributing to your software.

But we are talking about a case where somebody has chosen a way that
makes it impossible to contribute back to the software.  Whether he is
alienated and goes away and stops using the software does not actually
make a difference upstream: in either case, no improvement to the
software benefitting its users in general is achieved.

In contrast to you, however, I am not of the opinion that David is
incapable of listening to and understanding a different, though
inconvenient, opinion.

> The implied "oh well, good riddance" is an attitude that is the kiss
> of death.

If my attitude were "oh well, good riddance", I'd hardly be wasting my
time with explaining the problem, would I?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Luis O. Silva]

Hi,

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:23:55 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:

   TM> How well software works is a central issue in getting
   TM> people to use it.  If the Free Software movement is
   TM> content to have a limited market and minimal adoption,
   TM> well that can't be helped.

There is no market. Free developers don't produce
commodities. They aren't looking for customers. They are
freely working to create a free tool (which is always better
than the tools which are commodities).

If people don't understand freedom it is useless for the
movement to have millions using free tools.

All the best,
luis

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

>>>>> "LB" == Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:

LB> David Kastrup wrote:
>> The ability to craft a pretty MacOSX-only thing from Emacs is part
>> of the value of free software.  Doing so exercises the freedom, but
>> it does nothing to sustain it.
>> 
>> 

LB> In a sense you are right, but I wonder if this is really true. I
LB> think it is important to be very careful here. Can you for sure
LB> say that the last sentence is true?

LB>  From my perspective I doubt it. I have to use proprietary
LB> software (read Windows) in my job. It is quite hard for me to be
LB> able to use Emacs

Until I managed to  earn my right for a Linux box,  I used Windows too
and had no problem at all with Emacs from version 19.

I did not install the last Emacs version in Windows, since I use Linux
at work and boot eXtra Panzone (extra fat, even fatter than me, it's a
joke  that works  in  Italian only)  only when  I  have to  run a  job
reporting tool  (read crap) that  runs in excel,  so I don't  know how
difficult it is.

My opinion is  that a S.O. specific  thing is good as long  as it does
come as an add on on the  standard Emacs that a user gets only if s?he
needs  it and  explicitly requires  it.

So, since I use Emacs from version  19 under Unix, I would like to see
that once installed  on Windows it behaves the usual  way (i.e. no cua
stuff and so on). The same about Aqua Emacs.

I used to run Mac OS X for about (then I kicked it out, it doesn't fit
my needs) and compile CVS Emacs. I  was glad I could use the apple key
as Meta and Alt as super (i  do the same with those keyboards with the
flag key). Then a  guy I know pointed out Aqua Emacs.  I don't use Mac
OS X any more, but gave a look to the site. 

I understand that long time mac users would love it, as does that guy.

But let those customization be  something someone activates only if he
wants them, it's good to put them  as default choice, but it has to be
a choice.  Personally, I would rather  use old vi than  the Aqua Emacs
customization, but  other people disagrees and everybody  must be free
to use the tool the way s?he wants.

Even if I feel that they loose something not using Emacs the Emacs way.

CUA and  Mac OS  X interface are  too young  and stubborn to  have the
wisdom that comes with 30 years of evolution.


-- 
 /\            ___
/___/\__|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____________________
  //--\ | | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico  
\/		    e allevatore di bug da competizione

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[david.reitter]

> Get real.  You are headed for permanent forking for the sake of a
> non-free platform.

Don't worry, that won't happen unless I get more people (coders) help
me. I don't have the time to follow through with something like that.

> A lot of multi-person projects have sunken into oblivion because past
> contributors changed their mind, could not be brought around, or even
> contacted anymore.

OK, so what legal documents are there that I can make people sign, say,
for code that will not be integrated into a GNU project at this time,
but might be when the time comes?

I know that certain "qualified signatures" (e.g. via X.509 cert, signed
by a "trusted party", i.e. Thawte/Verisign etc.) do have legally
binding status in some legislations at this point. I wonder if these
things can be be used to sign code including a contract that contains
the same stuff that we need to sign when contributing to GNU projects.
If we can get the "paper" out of "paperwork", things would suddenly
become much more manageable.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[david.reitter]

> Correct.  But the work that I have been criticising was intended to
> make it _harder_ to switch from MacOSX to GNU/Linux, by providing
> features only for MacOSX.

What makes you think that this is anybody's intention?
Why would I care about OS X's market share as opposed to GNU/Linux's?
Most of the recent gains in Apple stock was driven by iPod sales, and
ideologically, we'd all be happier if a totally free system is used
more.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[david.reitter]

> There is no market. Free developers don't produce
> commodities. They aren't looking for customers. They are
> freely working to create a free tool (which is always better
> than the tools which are commodities).

What good is a free tool if it isn't used?
How will people learn about the advantages of freedom, if not by
exercising it?
Isn't it naïve to think that many people will eventually use tools for
the spirit involved in their making, even though the tools are
inconvenient?
Let's strive for technically excellence through exercising our freedom!

Practically, something like the Aquamacs distribubtion and the vast
majority of software in general has started out of practical needs.
That's what Linus Torvalds says about Linux. Aquamacs has thousands of
"customers" who use it to do their jobs. They don't use it just because
it's cool to have free software installed. I personally hated the way X
deals with selection, the mouse, and copying&pasting. I hated the
non-working font settings in Emacs. I disliked the fact that the window
system isn't used to its potential. Practical needs.

Of course, there's the other view, and that's what the GNU people here
are putting forward. Developing software from an ideological starting
point. That's fine, too.

In the end, it's the combination of technical advantage and
intellectual basis that makes things attractive.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

GianUberto.Lauri@eng.it (Gian Uberto Lauri) writes:

>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>> The ability to craft a pretty MacOSX-only thing from Emacs is part
>>> of the value of free software.  Doing so exercises the freedom, but
>>> it does nothing to sustain it.
>
> I used to run Mac OS X for about (then I kicked it out, it doesn't fit
> my needs) and compile CVS Emacs. I  was glad I could use the apple key
> as Meta and Alt as super (i  do the same with those keyboards with the
> flag key). Then a  guy I know pointed out Aqua Emacs.  I don't use Mac
> OS X any more, but gave a look to the site. 
>
> I understand that long time mac users would love it, as does that guy.
>
> But let those customization be something someone activates only if
> he wants them, it's good to put them as default choice, but it has
> to be a choice.  Personally, I would rather use old vi than the Aqua
> Emacs customization, but other people disagrees and everybody must
> be free to use the tool the way s?he wants.
>
> Even if I feel that they loose something not using Emacs the Emacs way.
>
> CUA and Mac OS X interface are too young and stubborn to have the
> wisdom that comes with 30 years of evolution.

It should be pointed out that this thread is not about whether or not
Aquamacs is a good thing in itself.  This is about whether its
development should be done in a manner that precludes it ever becoming
a part of Emacs.

While I agree that it is not a good idea to have different Emacses on
different platforms, this could perfectly well addressed by the use of
themes: every platform would have its default theme, but the user
could tell the Emacs on _any_ platform "please behave like Aquamacs"
or "please behave like the Windows Emacs" or "please behave like X11"
Emacs.  That way, everybody would have platform-specific benefits as
well as a tool that can easily be made to work the same across
platforms, and carry the behavior of the preferred platform
everywhere.

At the current point of time, Emacs' customization theme code are not
usable enough to make this a viable option.  This is likely to change.
When it does, having a separate Aquamacs code base that is not legally
tenable for reintegration into Emacs will preclude the Aquamacs
personality to be available for everyone if he so wishes, even if he
is working on Linux or X11.

I really don't think incompatible forks something which is desirable
in free software.  Aquamacs aims to be more than just a private
adaptation, and it is a pity that its usefulness gets strictly limited
in that manner.

I don't like the idea of a non-standard Emacs that can't be easily
made to behave like the standard one "out-of-the-box": it is
splintering rather than spreading the user base.  That's the reason I
am not particularly fond about Aquamacs, or bound to recommend it (if
people ask me for advice or have problems, I have no clue whether they
are due to Aquamacs or Emacs proper).

But I certainly acknowledge that in particular beginners on a given
platform might be better served with an Emacs version configured to be
more closely to what they expect.  Encompassing customization themes
would appear to be a good way out of that dilemma, giving _everybody_
the option to have Aquamacs-like looks and behavior, regardless of
operating system.

Once custom themes work well, it would be a pity if Aquamacs' behavior
and look could not be made available for everybody on every platform
who desired it.  And that requires being careful about the legal
matter timely.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

>>>>> "DK" == David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

DK> It should be pointed out that this thread is not about whether or
DK> not Aquamacs is a good thing in itself.  This is about whether its
DK> development should be done in a manner that precludes it ever
DK> becoming a part of Emacs.

I failed to explain that there's  no such thing as "The Good Universal
Interface". 

And I  agree 100% with  your position on  themes to solve it  and whit
your position about the freedom of the code in general.

-- 
 /\            ___
/___/\__|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____________________
  //--\ | | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico  
\/		    e allevatore di bug da competizione

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Lennart Borgman]

david.reitter@gmail.com wrote:

>I know that certain "qualified signatures" (e.g. via X.509 cert, signed
>by a "trusted party", i.e. Thawte/Verisign etc.) do have legally
>binding status in some legislations at this point. I wonder if these
>things can be be used to sign code including a contract that contains
>the same stuff that we need to sign when contributing to GNU projects.
>If we can get the "paper" out of "paperwork", things would suddenly
>become much more manageable.
>  
>
Maybe that is a good idea, but it is actually very easy to sign the 
papers for Emacs contributions.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

david.reitter@gmail.com writes:

>> Get real.  You are headed for permanent forking for the sake of a
>> non-free platform.
>
> Don't worry, that won't happen unless I get more people (coders)
> help me. I don't have the time to follow through with something like
> that.

Nobody has time enough to follow through with a fork in the long run.
Even the once thriving XEmacs project (who once had significant
company backing) is slowly being starved of active developers.  That's
exactly what makes it worrisome.

>> A lot of multi-person projects have sunken into oblivion because
>> past contributors changed their mind, could not be brought around,
>> or even contacted anymore.
>
> OK, so what legal documents are there that I can make people sign,
> say, for code that will not be integrated into a GNU project at this
> time, but might be when the time comes?

No fair, now I actually have to get out of rant mode.

There are several options.  The important thing is to realize that a
copyright assignment covers specific code.  Once the specific code is
copyrighted by the FSF, the FSF is free to shift this code around
within its property.

I think it is reasonable to assume that you are not interested in
having copyright from others assigned to yourself and then having to
pass it on eventually.  That means that any copyright assignments
would have to be done with the FSF as a party.

Even while copyright assigments are just for specific code, they
identify the code by project to which is it contributed.  If somebody
has a copyright assignment for Emacs in case, that does not mean
automatically that stuff he contributes to Aquamacs falls under that
assignment.  The act of yourself moving it from Aquamacs to Emacs does
not magically make it owned by the FSF.

That's the situation if one is splitting hairs.

So there are two ways to have this done:

a) have people write a copyright assigment for Aquamacs.  This means
that the FSF has to be interested in considering Aquamacs a project of
their own for which they accept contributions.  Given that your
development goals include improving Emacs as much as possible for
MacOSX, and this is what makes Aquamacs a separate project in the
first place, and given that Richard Stallman has repeatedly ruled out
improvements starting with non-free platforms, I think it is a safe
bet that this course would not work out.  Simply because the FSF would
not exchange contracts with contributors about Aquamacs contributions.

b) ask people to contact the FSF for a copyright assignment for Emacs.
It is common practice that people with Emacs CVS write access check in
changes from other parties.  I noticed that you do not seem to have
Emacs CVS write access right now (but have a copyright assignment in
place), it might be an idea to ask for it to make things easier.
Notice that you are responsible to refrain from putting things into
Emacs that are not clear with regard to the copyright status, so you
want to make sure that contributors know that you will pass stuff they
put into Aquamacs on in their behalf.  If you told them to file an
assignment for Emacs, or asked actively whether they had such an
assignment on file, that should be more or less safe.  You can
crosscheck with any maintainer of a GNU project, too, as they have
access to the assignment lists, and I'd be willing to check for you.
But even when an assignment is on file, the contributor has to be
aware that his contribution is going to end up in Emacs.  So you
should ask him anyway.


Now there is probably little motivation for a policy of keeping
_everything_ in Aquamacs assigned to the FSF.  That would be a viable
course for projects which may at one time become GNU projects or
change maintainers: in that case, you don't want to pick a project
apart into FSF-owned and other stuff.  But in your case, you can be
pretty sure that Aquamacs will not become a separate GNU project
because of the policy not to make Emacs ports that only benefit
non-free platforms.  The FSF will not want to own and/or maintain such
a port itself.  So code that is so very MacOSX-specific that its
functionality could not be achieved on other platforms, and that
offers an improvement over other platforms, will probably never make
it into Emacs in any manner, anyway.

But when you decide for mixed politics, you need to keep proper track
of what is yours (or rather the FSF's) to put into Emacs proper when
this is desirable, and what should stay confined only within Aquamacs.

For stuff like the icons, I'd write prospective contributors something
like

"Hi, I very much appreciate your icons/work you are willing to do.  I
think they deserve being made available on all versions of Emacs, not
just Aquamacs.  The FSF can only accept contributions into Emacs for
which they have been given the copyright.  I append a request form for
a copyright assignment into Emacs, in case you have not yet filled one
out.  If you are willing to do this, I would be able to make your
icons/code/whatever available for all Emacs versions, and it might
even be convenient for you if you have to switch platforms at one
time, and be able to make use of your contribution there as well."

> I know that certain "qualified signatures" (e.g. via X.509 cert,
> signed by a "trusted party", i.e. Thawte/Verisign etc.) do have
> legally binding status in some legislations at this point. I wonder
> if these things can be be used to sign code including a contract
> that contains the same stuff that we need to sign when contributing
> to GNU projects.  If we can get the "paper" out of "paperwork",
> things would suddenly become much more manageable.

If you are contributing stuff into Emacs, whether on the behalf of
someone else or yourself, then you are responsible not to misrepresent
the ownership of copyright that you contribute: that's what your
contract with the FSF states, and you are held accountable for damages
ensuing from a willful misrepresentation.  How much risk you are
willing to take when communicating with others about what they would
do or are willing to do or have done already is your own choice.

For assignments to the FSF, I don't think anything except paper gets
accepted currently for an assignment, but you could ask 
copyright-clerk at gnu dot org for details.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Reitter]

On 6 Jan 2006, at 12:40, Lennart Borgman wrote:

> david.reitter@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I know that certain "qualified signatures" (e.g. via X.509 cert,  
>> signed
>> by a "trusted party", i.e. Thawte/Verisign etc.) do have legally
>> binding status in some legislations at this point. I wonder if these
>> things can be be used to sign code including a contract that contains
>> the same stuff that we need to sign when contributing to GNU  
>> projects.
>> If we can get the "paper" out of "paperwork", things would suddenly
>> become much more manageable.
>>
> Maybe that is a good idea, but it is actually very easy to sign the  
> papers for Emacs contributions.

The difference is that you have to actively decide to contribute, or  
at least (rare case) being specifically asked. If people signed their  
code with such a legally binding signature, it could be used freely  
by anyone, for any compatible project. Of course, the license could  
even require you to sign such papers in case you integrate or re- 
publish the code.

The only reason I see why people haven't been doing that is that the  
specific legal procedure that applies to GNU project contributions  
doesn't really address an "industry"-wide problem, but only results  
from isolated incidents that hurt a single GNU project in the past.  
But it's a good process that adds value, so it should be promoted  
beyond GNU. To do so, you need paper-free paperwork and signatures on  
a by-offer as opposed to a by-request basis. 

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com> writes:

> On 6 Jan 2006, at 12:40, Lennart Borgman wrote:
>
>> david.reitter@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I know that certain "qualified signatures" (e.g. via X.509 cert,
>>> signed
>>> by a "trusted party", i.e. Thawte/Verisign etc.) do have legally
>>> binding status in some legislations at this point. I wonder if these
>>> things can be be used to sign code including a contract that contains
>>> the same stuff that we need to sign when contributing to GNU
>>> projects.
>>> If we can get the "paper" out of "paperwork", things would suddenly
>>> become much more manageable.
>>>
>> Maybe that is a good idea, but it is actually very easy to sign the
>> papers for Emacs contributions.
>
> The difference is that you have to actively decide to contribute, or
> at least (rare case) being specifically asked. If people signed
> their code with such a legally binding signature, it could be used
> freely by anyone, for any compatible project.

Uh, that is called "public domain".  It is possible to relinquish code
into the public domain where it is free for the taking for everyone.
Doing it in a legally sound manner is quite a bit of work.  The
copyright assignment to the FSF has the advantage that the soundness
is taken care of by the FSF.

Anyway, what you are thinking of is pretty much useless: the FSF is
interested in the paperwork in order to have a party responsible for
damages.  You can't hold somebody responsible for damages if you have
not even entered into any contract with him.  So if somebody steals
and disassembles some software from Microsoft and signs it with his
key and it gets put into Emacs, then Microsoft can sue the FSF for
damages and relief, and the person can get sued for Microsoft, but the
FSF can't reclaim the damages that it had because of the mistaken
assumption that the person was actually signing stuff which he had
rights to.  And this person can't be held responsible by the people
_profiting_ from his illegal contribution, but merely by the actual
author of the indicted code, and any parties to which he actively
engaged in an exchange.

The copyright assignment procedure means that the contributors to the
FSF copyrighted software are actual contractual partners.

Again, you can also check with a lawyer what it takes to put something
reliable into the public domain.  This does also benefit people who
want to integrate this into proprietary software (something which the
FSF and the GPL don't want to support), and then it becomes your own
responsibility to get everything right.

The procedure with the FSF, in contrast, is remarkably simple to do,
it incurs no costs for you, and you have just a single party to which
you are responsible.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> "Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:59:49 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:
>>>
>>>    TM> I've yet to find a GNU/Linux or BSD system that is as good
>>>    TM> to use as OS X.
>>>
>>> It's not a matter of how well something works. The only way to go
>>> is that of freedom.
>>
>> How well software works is a central issue in getting people to use
>> it.
>
> It is a secondary consideration for free software.  The primary
> motivator is freedom.  If it weren't, free software would not exist,
> since the beginnings of free software were almost necessarily
> technically inferior to proprietary offerings.  Free software owes
> its existence to its freedoms, not its usefulness.  If you sacrifice
> the freedom for the sake of usefulness, you'll lose both in the end.

And vice-versa, David.  I am baffled that you seem to be unable to see
that.  Free useless software is simply irrelevant and contributes
nothing.  Free difficult-to-use software risks being irrelevant and
contributing little.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

"Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:23:55 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:
>
>    TM> How well software works is a central issue in getting people
>    TM> to use it.  If the Free Software movement is content to have
>    TM> a limited market and minimal adoption, well that can't be
>    TM> helped.
>
> There is no market. Free developers don't produce commodities. They
> aren't looking for customers. They are freely working to create a
> free tool (which is always better than the tools which are
> commodities).

Except that many of the free tools are not superior to the proprietary
ones in practice.  And without attending to that, free software risks
being nothing more than a pedantic, philosophical stance and being
nothing other than marginal.

> If people don't understand freedom it is useless for the movement to
> have millions using free tools.

On this I am afraid we have irreconcilable differences.  You (and
David) are over-focused on free software in the abstract sense of
freedom.  Fine as a principle but it does not increase the freedom of
computer users on a daily basis.  IMHO where freedom counts is not in
the abstract but at the keyboards and mouses and displays of users.

If the goal is to promote freedom for computer users and to change the
world for the better, then attention must be paid to the useability of
free software and removing the obstacles to adoption by the
mainstream.  If the goal is to carve out some morally superior stance,
then by all means carry on as you are.  As far as I can tell, that's
all the current approach is going to get you.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:59:49 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:
>>>>
>>>>    TM> I've yet to find a GNU/Linux or BSD system that is as good
>>>>    TM> to use as OS X.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a matter of how well something works. The only way to go
>>>> is that of freedom.
>>>
>>> How well software works is a central issue in getting people to use
>>> it.
>>
>> It is a secondary consideration for free software.  The primary
>> motivator is freedom.  If it weren't, free software would not exist,
>> since the beginnings of free software were almost necessarily
>> technically inferior to proprietary offerings.  Free software owes
>> its existence to its freedoms, not its usefulness.  If you sacrifice
>> the freedom for the sake of usefulness, you'll lose both in the end.
>
> And vice-versa, David.

No, not vice-versa.  Reread the paragraph you quoted until you
understand it.

> I am baffled that you seem to be unable to see that.  Free useless
> software is simply irrelevant and contributes nothing.  Free
> difficult-to-use software risks being irrelevant and contributing
> little.

But free software _was_ difficult to use from its inception.  Your
argument is contradicted by history.  If everybody had chosen
convenience over freedom, you'd not have anything to whine about now.
Granted, few people choose freedom over convenience.  But since the
consequences of their choice remain with us, they can still make a
difference, and that's the power of free software.  Regardless of its
weaknesses, you can't squash it.

By now, most of the traditional Unix market has been flattened by
Linux.  And the reason is that the Unix competition required companies
to fight for the best reinvention of the wheel.  The power of free
software is that the best wheel from everybody gets picked, and then
people move on.  The steps may be tiny, but they move on.

And that is why fiendishly-difficult-to-use free software crawled into
being and did not vanish off the chart.  Lose the freedom, and it goes
down the drain as soon as the initial impetus is gone.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> "Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:23:55 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:
>>
>>    TM> How well software works is a central issue in getting people
>>    TM> to use it.  If the Free Software movement is content to have
>>    TM> a limited market and minimal adoption, well that can't be
>>    TM> helped.
>>
>> There is no market. Free developers don't produce commodities. They
>> aren't looking for customers. They are freely working to create a
>> free tool (which is always better than the tools which are
>> commodities).
>
> Except that many of the free tools are not superior to the
> proprietary ones in practice.  And without attending to that, free
> software risks being nothing more than a pedantic, philosophical
> stance and being nothing other than marginal.

Why should that bother authors of free software?  Every piece of free
software started out in this state.  History should have taught you
that this does not preclude it becoming important.  But the freedom
means that its unimportance need never be terminal.

>> If people don't understand freedom it is useless for the movement
>> to have millions using free tools.
>
> On this I am afraid we have irreconcilable differences.

Definitely.  You are missing a grasp of history.  Linux started out
among Unices as a bad joke.  So did GNU.  The one thing that made sure
that they did not die like many other bad jokes was its freedom.

The value of a free press is not that its newspapers are cheaper or
glossier than elsewhere.  It may or may not be so.  But it is not
important in the long run.  Those that reap the benefits of freedom
without contributing to it are fast in calling it dispensible.

> You (and David) are over-focused on free software in the abstract
> sense of freedom.  Fine as a principle but it does not increase the
> freedom of computer users on a daily basis.  IMHO where freedom
> counts is not in the abstract but at the keyboards and mouses and
> displays of users.

You are confusing freedom and convenience.

> If the goal is to promote freedom for computer users and to change
> the world for the better, then attention must be paid to the
> useability of free software and removing the obstacles to adoption
> by the mainstream.

I recommend that you read up about what freedoms free software is
trying to preserve.  You could start at
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>.

Those freedoms ensure that _if_ somebody works on convenience, his
work will not disappear.

> If the goal is to carve out some morally superior stance, then by
> all means carry on as you are.  As far as I can tell, that's all the
> current approach is going to get you.

Well, it obliterated most commercial Unices by now.  I think it is
doing fine, considering that it's not useful.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Paul D. Smith]

%% Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

  tm> If the goal is to promote freedom for computer users and to change
  tm> the world for the better, then attention must be paid to the
  tm> useability of free software and removing the obstacles to adoption
  tm> by the mainstream.

Of course one of the goals of free software, like any software, is to be
useful and usable.  The stance of the FSF is that this goal is less
important than the fact of the software being free.

You are requiring us to make a false choice: freedom or convenience.
That's not an either/or situation, ever.

If the choice is between having more convenient, NON-FREE software now,
or have less convenient software today and making steady progress
towards more convenient, FREE software later, the FSF will always choose
the latter.  In fact, even if the latter is not an option they still
won't choose the former, but in practice it's never not an option.


As for the predictions of doom if the former course is not pursued,
well, these predictions have been made time and time again ever since I
started using free software 17+ years ago.  It's still here, and going
stronger than ever.  I don't think the FSF's position has hurt its
cause; on the contrary there is plenty of evidence that it works.

Cheers!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <psmith@gnu.org>          Find some GNU make tips at:
 http://www.gnu.org                      http://make.paulandlesley.org
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Sean Sieger]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

   On this I am afraid we have irreconcilable differences.  You (and
   David) are over-focused on free software in the abstract sense of
   freedom.  Fine as a principle but it does not increase the freedom of
   computer users on a daily basis.  IMHO where freedom counts is not in
   the abstract but at the keyboards and mouses and displays of users.

   If the goal is to promote freedom for computer users and to change the
   world for the better, then attention must be paid to the useability of
   free software and removing the obstacles to adoption by the
   mainstream.  If the goal is to carve out some morally superior stance,
   then by all means carry on as you are.  As far as I can tell, that's
   all the current approach is going to get you.

What is not reconcilable is your opinion on a GNU mail list and you
are free to express that. Uncanny.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Kevin Rodgers]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> If the goal is to promote freedom for computer users and to change the
> world for the better,

As I understand it, that is not the goal.  The goal is promote freedom
of software use, for both users and (more to the point) developers.  In
doing so, the world is changed for the better.

> then attention must be paid to the useability of
> free software and removing the obstacles to adoption by the
> mainstream.  If the goal is to carve out some morally superior stance,
> then by all means carry on as you are.  As far as I can tell, that's
> all the current approach is going to get you.

The morally superior stance is what has attracted people to develop
more useful software, which has been widely adopted.  Whether it is
mainstream or not is irrelevant.

-- 
Kevin

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Björn Lindström]

"Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:

> Free software is developing by itself or I might say it's undergoing
> evolution like a living creature. It's growing and getting
> better. This process will never stop[1] and is, in some sense,
> autonomous.  In contrast, commodities are done to be sold. Here
> developers bow to the market.
>
> The conclusion about better development, then, can be easily be drawn.

Not really. A lot of people get paid for developing free software. As
the demands for free software grows, the profitability of developing
will increase.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) writes:

> "Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:
>
>> Free software is developing by itself or I might say it's undergoing
>> evolution like a living creature. It's growing and getting
>> better. This process will never stop[1] and is, in some sense,
>> autonomous.  In contrast, commodities are done to be sold. Here
>> developers bow to the market.
>>
>> The conclusion about better development, then, can be easily be drawn.
>
> Not really. A lot of people get paid for developing free software. As
> the demands for free software grows, the profitability of developing
> will increase.

Sure, and certainly free software does not develop by itself.  And of
course, user friendliness is an important goal, just not at the cost
of freedom.  Since it would be self-defeating in the long run, anyway.

If your most important goal in life is to have lots of children, and
you happen to be on board of the Titanic when the water gushes in,
should you rather look for a spouse or a life vest?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Lennart Borgman]

Kevin Rodgers wrote:

>
> The morally superior stance is what has attracted people to develop
> more useful software, which has been widely adopted.  Whether it is
> mainstream or not is irrelevant.
>
Usability and accessibility are very important points if we talk about 
etiks.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Luis O. Silva]

Hi Tim,

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:09:44 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:

   TM> Except that many of the free tools are not superior to
   TM> the proprietary ones in practice.  And without
   TM> attending to that, free software risks being nothing
   TM> more than a pedantic, philosophical stance and being
   TM> nothing other than marginal.

First of all I apologize for quoting your post partially. In
my opinion the other parts have already been addressed by
David.

I just add a few lines about the above-quoted text, about the
necessity for developers to address the "disadvantges" of free
software with respect to proprietary.

Free software is developing by itself or I might say it's
undergoing evolution like a living creature. It's growing and
getting better. This process will never stop[1] and is, in
some sense, autonomous.  In contrast, commodities are done to
be sold. Here developers bow to the market.

The conclusion about better development, then, can be
easily be drawn.

Footnotes: [1] unless free thinking and free exchange of
information become prohibited. That's why I said (see my
previous post) that your understanding of freedom is far more
important than financial support. That's why I'm writing this
lines.

Best regards,
luis

-- 
Luis Octavio Silva Pereyra.
IIMAS-UNAM
Depto. de Métodos Matemáticos y Numéricos
Apdo. postal 20-726
01000 México, D.F.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:59:49 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>    TM> I've yet to find a GNU/Linux or BSD system that is as
>>>>>    TM> good to use as OS X.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a matter of how well something works. The only way to
>>>>> go is that of freedom.
>>>>
>>>> How well software works is a central issue in getting people to
>>>> use it.
>>>
>>> It is a secondary consideration for free software.  The primary
>>> motivator is freedom.  If it weren't, free software would not
>>> exist, since the beginnings of free software were almost
>>> necessarily technically inferior to proprietary offerings.  Free
>>> software owes its existence to its freedoms, not its usefulness.
>>> If you sacrifice the freedom for the sake of usefulness, you'll
>>> lose both in the end.
>>
>> And vice-versa, David.
>
> No, not vice-versa.  Reread the paragraph you quoted until you
> understand it.

David, what you are writing is not exactly rocket science.  The fact
that I disagree with you is not evidence of incomprehension.

>> I am baffled that you seem to be unable to see that.  Free useless
>> software is simply irrelevant and contributes nothing.  Free
>> difficult-to-use software risks being irrelevant and contributing
>> little.
>
> But free software _was_ difficult to use from its inception.  Your
> argument is contradicted by history.  

It was a clone of the proprietary software that it was intended to be
an alternative to.  The proprietary software was also difficult to
use.  Times have changed, the expectations of the users has changed,
and free software has to change with that to remain relevant.

> If everybody had chosen convenience over freedom, you'd not have
> anything to whine about now.

LOL, you do seem to love to denigrate your audience.  Ad hominem-
whether blatant or implied- is neither pretty nor effective.

> Granted, few people choose freedom over convenience.  But since the
> consequences of their choice remain with us, they can still make a
> difference, and that's the power of free software.  Regardless of its
> weaknesses, you can't squash it.

Nor am I trying to.  I am merely pointing out that the type of
attitude you are displaying runs the risk of sinking free software or
continuing its marginalized existence.

> By now, most of the traditional Unix market has been flattened by
> Linux.  

Ummm, in some parts of the market.  Not in others.  Now, I happen to
think that it's a good thing that GNU/Linux and the various free BSDs
have had some success.  I also think it's telling that the most
successful BSD- and arguably the most successful Unix clone- is the
one underpinning OS X.

> And the reason is that the Unix competition required companies to
> fight for the best reinvention of the wheel.  The power of free
> software is that the best wheel from everybody gets picked, and then
> people move on.  The steps may be tiny, but they move on.
>
> And that is why fiendishly-difficult-to-use free software crawled
> into being and did not vanish off the chart.  Lose the freedom, and
> it goes down the drain as soon as the initial impetus is gone.

You've still missed the point.  And you seem to have no interest in
getting it.  So, cheers!  I think you're wrong and narrow-sighted, but
it's clear I can write nothing you would find acceptable except a
wholesale embrasure of your position.  Since I think you're wrong and
do not find your arguments compelling, that's not going to happen.
Good luck to you and GNU.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

Sean Sieger <sean.sieger@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>    On this I am afraid we have irreconcilable differences.  You (and
>    David) are over-focused on free software in the abstract sense of
>    freedom.  Fine as a principle but it does not increase the
>    freedom of computer users on a daily basis.  IMHO where freedom
>    counts is not in the abstract but at the keyboards and mouses and
>    displays of users.
>
>    If the goal is to promote freedom for computer users and to
>    change the world for the better, then attention must be paid to
>    the useability of free software and removing the obstacles to
>    adoption by the mainstream.  If the goal is to carve out some
>    morally superior stance, then by all means carry on as you are.
>    As far as I can tell, that's all the current approach is going to
>    get you.
>
> What is not reconcilable is your opinion on a GNU mail list and you
> are free to express that. Uncanny.

Usenet newsgroup, in my case.  I subscribe to no GNU mailing lists.
And there is of course nothing irreconcilable about it.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Tim McNamara]

"Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:

> Hi Tim,
>
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:09:44 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:
>
>    TM> Except that many of the free tools are not superior to the
>    TM> proprietary ones in practice.  And without attending to that,
>    TM> free software risks being nothing more than a pedantic,
>    TM> philosophical stance and being nothing other than marginal.
>
> First of all I apologize for quoting your post partially. In my
> opinion the other parts have already been addressed by David.
>
> I just add a few lines about the above-quoted text, about the
> necessity for developers to address the "disadvantges" of free
> software with respect to proprietary.
>
> Free software is developing by itself or I might say it's undergoing
> evolution like a living creature. It's growing and getting
> better. This process will never stop[1] and is, in some sense,
> autonomous.  In contrast, commodities are done to be sold. Here
> developers bow to the market.
>
> The conclusion about better development, then, can be easily be
> drawn.
>
> Footnotes: [1] unless free thinking and free exchange of information
> become prohibited. That's why I said (see my previous post) that
> your understanding of freedom is far more important than financial
> support. That's why I'm writing this lines.

Thank you, Luis.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> You've still missed the point.  And you seem to have no interest in
> getting it.  So, cheers!  I think you're wrong and narrow-sighted,
> but it's clear I can write nothing you would find acceptable except
> a wholesale embrasure of your position.  Since I think you're wrong
> and do not find your arguments compelling, that's not going to
> happen.  Good luck to you and GNU.

Well, good thing there are wrong and narrow-minded persons like
Richard Stallman around to make a difference among all the insightful
people like yourself.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

david.reitter@gmail.com writes:

>> There is no market. Free developers don't produce
>> commodities. They aren't looking for customers. They are
>> freely working to create a free tool (which is always better
>> than the tools which are commodities).
>
> What good is a free tool if it isn't used?

You can build upon it to get something that can be used.  It is a step
forward for everyone.  If you cut yourself off from the progress, all
improvements are no longer steps forward for everyone, but lead into a
private dead end.

> How will people learn about the advantages of freedom, if not by
> exercising it?

The value of a free press is not cheap newspapers.

> Isn't it naïve to think that many people will eventually use tools for
> the spirit involved in their making, even though the tools are
> inconvenient?

Since most free software got into being technically inferior to the
proprietary offers, naivety seems to rule history.

> Let's strive for technically excellence through exercising our
> freedom!

But by cutting other's off from the benefits of said freedoms, you
make your excellence short-lived.

> Practically, something like the Aquamacs distribubtion and the vast
> majority of software in general has started out of practical needs.
> That's what Linus Torvalds says about Linux.

Torvalds said no such thing.  He wanted a system with the freedom to
tamper with.  GNU was perfect for that, but had no kernel.  So he
wrote a kernel.  For the purpose of being able to tamper with it.
Which is one of the fundamental freedoms of free software.

> Aquamacs has thousands of "customers" who use it to do their
> jobs. They don't use it just because it's cool to have free software
> installed.

And will probably never help to improve the software.  And even if
they do, they will likely only help you to improve Aquamacs, and the
improvements will never be available upstream.  And that means that
people will get _locked_ into MacOSX _by_ Aquamacs.  And that is
diminuishing their freedom.

> I personally hated the way X deals with selection, the mouse, and
> copying&pasting.  I hated the non-working font settings in Emacs. I
> disliked the fact that the window system isn't used to its
> potential.  Practical needs.

So the way would have been to improve Emacs for everybody instead of
just yourself.  Yes, this is more work.  Yes, it means that one has to
coordinate with other people.  Yes, it means having to make
compromises.  But it also means contributing to the source of freedom
instead of just profiting to it.  It is a nuisance, but you would have
nothing to play with if others had not bothered with this nuisance.

> Of course, there's the other view, and that's what the GNU people
> here are putting forward. Developing software from an ideological
> starting point. That's fine, too.
>
> In the end, it's the combination of technical advantage and
> intellectual basis that makes things attractive.

But if you make if impossible to combine your technical advantages
with the upstream code base, there is nothing attractive in it for
anyone except the proponents of proprietary systems.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[david.reitter]

David Kastrup wrote:

> > Practically, something like the Aquamacs distribubtion and the vast
> > majority of software in general has started out of practical needs.
> > That's what Linus Torvalds says about Linux.
>
> Torvalds said no such thing.  He wanted a system with the freedom to
> tamper with.  GNU was perfect for that, but had no kernel.  So he
> wrote a kernel.  For the purpose of being able to tamper with it.
> Which is one of the fundamental freedoms of free software.

Well there's your a practical reason. Things are being written because
someone needed them. I doubt that people write drivers just for the
heck of it.

> But if you make if impossible to combine your technical advantages
> with the upstream code base, there is nothing attractive in it for
> anyone except the proponents of proprietary systems.

Sorry, the "impossible" thing is simply not true. I've told you time
and again that I'll try to make it possible to get copyright
assignments for the icons at some point. (And there are no icons right
now anyways, so the whole discussion is academic).

And with regards to existing code, all that is not a publicly available
package which we're including in the distribution, i.e. all the code is
GPL'ed and I have signed the letter with the FSF. Many things have
already been made available for integration.
The rest of the appeal of Aquamacs comes from packages that have been
written by others. color-theme, pager, redo, a bunch of major modes
spring to mind. The fact that they're available without installation or
configuration is a major advantage to most users.

Heck I'd be honored if people showed an interest to integrate this, or
to make Aquamacs available for other systems. But don't forget that
Aquamacs changes the UI significantly, in part by redefining, patching,
advising functions. This change in UI is its main motivation. I don't
know if themes support such business.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Joe Bush]

I disagree with the notion that commercial software is, as
a general rule,superior to free software. It may have a better HMI,
and look nicer, but that doesn't guarantee better performance under
the hood.

I've never used an apple, so I can only comment on MS products. I
think that Microsoft's HMI should in no way be held up as the standard
to which everything else is measured.

-Joe.

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Joe Bush <bushj004@hawaii.rr.com> writes:

> I disagree with the notion that commercial software is, as a general
> rule,superior to free software. It may have a better HMI, and look
> nicer, but that doesn't guarantee better performance under the hood.

I was talking about the case where we have _existing_ established
software, and _new_ software with a similar goal gets developed.  The
newcomer starts out as the underdog.  This has nothing to do with
free/nonfree.

A lot of software dies the "why bother?" death early on.  Free
software has an answer to that question: "because it is free".

> I've never used an apple, so I can only comment on MS products. I
> think that Microsoft's HMI should in no way be held up as the
> standard to which everything else is measured.

Sure.  A bunch of baloney filtered through usability labs might still
be a bunch of baloney.  I was just talking about
"established/fledgling", and that is, free or nonfree, a difficult
position to start with.  Lots of free software has been able to pull
this off because of the single advantage of being free.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Joe Bush]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Sure.  A bunch of baloney filtered through usability labs might still
> be a bunch of baloney.  I was just talking about
> "established/fledgling", and that is, free or nonfree, a difficult
> position to start with.  Lots of free software has been able to pull
> this off because of the single advantage of being free.

Yes. I also agree that the idea of "Let's just do it, and try to
get legal papers for it later" has no place in free software. Any
software however trivial, which purports to be free, but which cannot
trace it's pedigree completely provides a handle that a copy-rite
attorney could use to throw the whole FSF into question. Doesn't
matter if the rest of the software's clean. The case could simply be
litigated to the point of bankruptcy for the FSF.

Here's a question: Why hasn't Apple itself 'prettied-up' Emacs? It's not
like they have neither the time, nor the ability to do so. I seem to
recall (though I could be wrong) that OSX itself is a 'prettied-up'
HMI wrapper around BSD.

-Joe

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[David Kastrup]

Joe Bush <bushj004@hawaii.rr.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Sure.  A bunch of baloney filtered through usability labs might still
>> be a bunch of baloney.  I was just talking about
>> "established/fledgling", and that is, free or nonfree, a difficult
>> position to start with.  Lots of free software has been able to pull
>> this off because of the single advantage of being free.
>
> Yes. I also agree that the idea of "Let's just do it, and try to
> get legal papers for it later" has no place in free software.

Oh, not at all.  The whole point of free software is to be able to do
stuff without having to worry about lawyers and stuff.  The copyright
assignments are not about freedom, but about its outward defense in an
unfree world.

The FSF can't afford to lose a copyright lawsuit over its software.
And that means that it must track its sources meticulously and make
sure that it keeps in control of them, at least the strategic assets
(there is GNU software that does not require assignments.  It depends
on how important it is to the FSF to be able to prevail in court, both
as defendant and as plaintiff, and how much stands at risk).

> Any software however trivial, which purports to be free, but which
> cannot trace it's pedigree completely provides a handle that a
> copy-rite attorney could use to throw the whole FSF into
> question. Doesn't matter if the rest of the software's clean. The
> case could simply be litigated to the point of bankruptcy for the
> FSF.

Yes.  The current SCO/IBM lawsuit shows how deep your pockets need to
be if you want to survive even a rather frivolous lawsuit centered
about distributed and hard to trace copyrights.

> Here's a question: Why hasn't Apple itself 'prettied-up' Emacs? It's
> not like they have neither the time, nor the ability to do so. I
> seem to recall (though I could be wrong) that OSX itself is a
> 'prettied-up' HMI wrapper around BSD.

But BSD is licensed differently.  But you also have to be realistic:
Emacs does not meet _any_ interface guide criteria.  Just look at
keybindings and internationalization.  Putting Emacs in your corporate
policies is like splicing carrot and alligator genes in order to get
more resilient crops.  In the unlikely case that you'll succeed, come
harvest time you'll look at a field of snarling roots that clutch and
wonder what got into you.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)

[Sean Sieger]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

   is like splicing carrot and alligator genes in order to get
   more resilient crops.  In the unlikely case that you'll succeed, come
   harvest time you'll look at a field of snarling roots that clutch and
   wonder what got into you.

I have enjoyed reading your part in this thread -- thank you for
your time and patience. And methinks you're a poet to boot.