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: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:02:16 +0000 Message-ID: <20080826100216.GA2505@muc.de> References: <20080817073124.GA1294@muc.de> <87ljyv5gy5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818101802.GA2615@muc.de> <87bpzqqk7b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818210927.GD2615@muc.de> <87wsidnxqp.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080819155221.GA11524@muc.de> <871w0dcg6j.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080825220105.GA13599@muc.de> <87prnwgyvc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219744761 8044 80.91.229.12 (26 Aug 2008 09:59:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:59:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, hannes@saeurebad.de, rms@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 26 12:00:09 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 1KXvLM-0005Eh-RA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:00:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36737 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXvKO-00014n-DL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:59:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXvKC-00014i-EE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:58:56 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXvKA-00014W-LM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:58:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42538 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXvKA-00014T-Ew for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:58:54 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:1443 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 1KXvK9-0000bx-Mw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:58:54 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 38180 invoked by uid 3782); 26 Aug 2008 09:58:52 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E2392A.dip.t-dialin.net [217.226.57.42]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:58:48 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3228 invoked by uid 1000); 26 Aug 2008 10:02:16 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87prnwgyvc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> 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:102980 Archived-At: Hi, Stephen, On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 01:54:15PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Alan Mackenzie writes: > > Yes, we want software to be free, but no, we don't want people to > > use this freedom in certain ways, ways which would inhibit the > > progress of free software. > I'm not sure I agree with this formulation, but it's not what I'm > talking about in this thread. I think it is. I think it's the abstract principle behind RMS's decision not to put a binary module loader in Emacs. If you don't like my formulation, how about reformulating it your own way? > I'm talking about a specific decision which is based not on observing > people misusing freedom, not on the likelihood of people misusing > freedom in foreseeable ways, but rather on the conceptual possibility > that in some as-yet unforeseeable way somehow someday somebody might > possibly misuse freedom to a disastrous end. You might be right there. Such a "conceptual possibility" existed wrt patents in GPL2. Microsoft and Novell exploited it to give special "patent protection" (against unspecified MS patents) to direct Novell customers only, in gross violation of the ideals of the GPL. Rather clumsily, they pulled the stunt as GPL3 was being developed. I think it's right to be very wary about exposing possible vulnerabilities to proprietary competitors. They will be actively seeking weak points to exploit. [ .... ] > > Eric Ludlam mentioned a product called Xrefactory a couple of days > > ago. It seems to be a refactoring tool based upon (X)Emacs. Yes, > > this is legitimate within the terms of the GPL, but isn't the sort > > of thing we really want to encourage; it's not free, neither in the > > speech nor beer sense. > The reductio is obvious, isn't it? Since any free software program can > be abused as part of a non-free software product, we should stop all > distribution of free software to the heathen. That way we can be sure > of providing the minimum encouragement to abuse freedom. No, not at all. The absurdum is what I pointed out yesterday, not what you've just written: we restrict freedom to protect it against being used to destroy itself. [ .... ] > Effectively discouraging non-free software is out of our control. > "Mr. Quixote, meet Mr. Windmill...." It is not. There are few non-free extensions to Emacs, at least that I have heard of. With a binary module loader, there might well be more. > > I gladly accept the freedom guaranteed by professional soldiers. > > Just as those soldiers protect those "who don't give a damn", I feel > > we should protect the (software) freedom of those who, for whatever > > reason, wouldn't protect their own. > At the cost of the freedom of those who would *like* to use unfree > software: they have done the calculation on the costs of lock-in, and > like the answers they got. Yes, this is down in the irony and contradictions department of free software. But as you've noted, the lock-in is largely psychological: there's nothing in the GPL to prevent anybody extending Emacs pretty much however they want, and that includes adding a binary module loader - providing the loaded modules wouldn't get too intimate with Emacs itself. > I find your paternalism distasteful. Yes, I expected that and I've no problem with it. Likewise, I find aspects of your personal philosophy distasteful too. I look on it as a source of fruitful debate, far better than the near slanging match we were having just a few days ago. [ .... ] > Some people are willing to accept the constraints of unfree software > constrained for commercial advantage. Some people hate unfree software > so much that they impose constraints on the use of their software by > others, and claim that the net result is somehow an increase in freedom > when in fact there is a clear decrease in options available to users. > I don't really see an ethical difference here. I think you're right. That is down in the irony/contradiction/absurdity region again, where the ethics can't help but being murky. A while ago, I was arguing that Emacs being available on w32 was a good thing - not from any highly principled position, just for purely pragmatic reasons. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).