Alan Mackenzie wrote: > You aren't > considering the effect on everybody else. > That is the main thing that I *am* considering. > 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. > It is defeatism if you think that Emacs maintainers can't easily hack their way out of such a situation or even if you think that that's a likely outcome. > Now I'm not saying this is an overwhelming argument. I'm saying it's completely underwhelming. > 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. > Stephen said it a different way. I said it already. There is no "must be weighed and balanced" here. Yes, that's what RMS would have us believe -- that it is a judgment call and one that has to be made centrally and who better to make it.... I argued that no judgment call is needed. By generic reasoning -- just general common sense principles -- that feature X enables non-free hacks is neutral: never an argument against feature X. That feature X enables many free software hacks is an argument for X. RMS has been exercising an authority for which there is no need in deciding these "hard" cases. > 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. > How did you become persuaded of the supposed "dangers" in the first place? > You should address this, instead of evading it as you have done up to > now. > > Stephen's reply answered that bit well. -t >> -t >> > >