From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:35:08 +0000 Message-ID: <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> References: <20080813092057.GA3010@muc.de> <20080814083817.GA2593@muc.de> <877iak7xfp.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <873al79akr.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <48A5BAD7.8030302@emf.net> <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1218922382 22494 80.91.229.12 (16 Aug 2008 21:33:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:33:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, hannes@saeurebad.de To: Thomas Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 16 23:33:54 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KUTPF-0002oJ-FU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:33:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60884 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUTOI-0000QV-I5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:32:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUTOE-0000Po-5Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:32:50 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUTOC-0000Nc-Ft for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:32:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37616 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUTOC-0000NS-Cw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:32:48 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:1392 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KUTOB-0002RR-RG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:32:48 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 50119 invoked by uid 3782); 16 Aug 2008 21:32:42 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E52DCA.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.45.202]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:32:40 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 9178 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Aug 2008 21:35:08 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:102539 Archived-At: 'Evening, Thomas! On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 02:04:11PM -0700, Thomas Lord wrote: > Richard M. Stallman wrote: > > How does not providing dynamic loading maximize what users can > > do while remaining free? > >It protects against the danger of non-free C-level add-ons to Emacs. > >It's the same principle as the GPL itself. > That doesn't answer the question. You said something odd: > that not having a dynamic loading feature helps to maximize > what users can do in freedom. That's false, though. Having > a dynamic loading feature would let users do more, in freedom. [ .... ] > When people have cause to *exercise* their software freedoms > they come to understand those freedoms better. They are more > likely to come to regard those freedoms as simply "natural" -- > as a basic right. If more people are busy exercising their software > freedoms, more people will be prepared to defend those freedoms. Yes, but. I think you understand Richard's argument but are glossing over it. We're not just individuals - we live in a community, and our exercise of our freedoms affects everybody else. (If you're a political libertarian, you probably need read no further. ;-) You aren't considering the effect on everybody else. The ability to link binary libraries into Emacs means the ability to link non-free binaries in (think Linux modules here), possibly with _very_ useful functionality, whose inclusion could screw up Emacs's freedom in a significant way. Five years from now, lots of people could be "freely" chosing this "non-free" version. This would be damaging to the aims of the FSF. Now I'm not saying this is an overwhelming argument. I'm saying that it must be weighed and balanced against the (substantial) benefits of binary libraries. Just as individual people's freedom to own guns must be weighed against the right of the community not to have its members shot. My opinion on allowing binary libraries into Emacs is that its dangers would be greater than the benefits it would allow. I'm willing to be persuaded I'm mistaken. You should address this, instead of evading it as you have done up to now. > -t -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).