From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:19:37 +0200 Message-ID: <48B32FF9.6040505@gmail.com> References: <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219702819 5922 80.91.229.12 (25 Aug 2008 22:20:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , emacs-devel@gnu.org, hannes@saeurebad.de, rms@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 26 00:21:12 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 1KXkQx-00069d-Rp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:21:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53182 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXkPz-0006fL-Pm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:20:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXkPv-0006eX-AJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:20:07 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXkPu-0006dg-DJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:20:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36691 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXkPu-0006dZ-A0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:20:06 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]:51028) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KXkPr-0004Oc-8H; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:20:03 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-151-176.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.151.176]:63275 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KXkPn-0004La-9T; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:20:00 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <20080825220105.GA13599@muc.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080825-0, 2008-08-25), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.151.176 X-ACL-Warn: Too high rate of unknown addresses received from you X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KXkPn-0004La-9T. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1KXkPn-0004La-9T 438bfd5708adddd92cbce1c68de876ce X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:102969 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie wrote: > constitution to protect it, and this usually works. In maths, there is > the Axiom of Choice (which is obviously true) and Zorn's Lemma (which is > patently absurd), yet the two are logically equivalent. Mathematicians > are fairly relaxed about absurdities and joke about them over an > afternoon cup of tea. No math please, that takes too much time ;-) > Again, with Eric's example of Xrefactory, any hackers who buy that > product and incorporate it into their development process thereby lose > some of their freedom - their process has become tied to a product they > can't control - to some extent. This is another one of these > contradictions about software freedom - by exercising freedom you > diminish it. I am not sure that conclusion is valid. You can think "Ah, why should people have to buy that sort of software? Everyone can't do that! I will write a free version of this! Hope someone else will join ..." Is not that what often happens?