From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:37:24 -0700 Message-ID: <48A78EE4.50802@emf.net> 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> <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040401030005020408070804" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1218937841 20431 80.91.229.12 (17 Aug 2008 01:50:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 01:50:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, hannes@saeurebad.de To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 17 03:51:32 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 1KUXQZ-0007Ur-Ue for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:51:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43530 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUXPd-000782-5O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:50:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUXMs-0006ST-2T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:47:42 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUXMr-0006SH-Al for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:47:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60846 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUXMr-0006SE-7N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:47:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.42inc.com ([205.149.0.25]:53336) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (SSL 3.0:RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KUXMj-0002hw-Bb; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:47:33 -0400 X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.5 X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter-42inc: Scanned X-42-Virus-Scanned: by 42 Antivirus -- Found to be clean. Original-Received: from [69.236.75.128] (account lord@emf.net HELO [192.168.1.64]) by mail.42inc.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.13) with ESMTPA id 37036600; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:47:19 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) In-Reply-To: <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:102541 Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040401030005020408070804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 >> > > --------------040401030005020408070804 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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
    

  

  

  








--------------040401030005020408070804--