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: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:09:49 +0200 Message-ID: <48B5DEBD.9090009@gmail.com> References: <48A5BAD7.8030302@emf.net> <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> <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> <87ljytkwpk.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <878wusz0v9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87vdxp27z6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87prnxe5hc.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <873aktck5d.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k5e5dsvq.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <48B44802.1080302@emf.net> <48B5D5EF.2030501@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219878635 18993 80.91.229.12 (27 Aug 2008 23:10:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:10:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bob@rattlesnake.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Thomas Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 28 01:11:28 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 1KYUAc-0001Ro-I4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:11:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54784 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYU9e-00014L-9E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:10:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYU9Z-000149-9g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:10:17 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYU9X-00013s-PV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:10:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49246 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYU9X-00013n-JH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:10:15 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]:40678) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KYU9T-0001Lu-0i; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:10:11 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-151-176.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.151.176]:63273 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KYU9R-0001FR-78; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:10:09 +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: <48B5D5EF.2030501@emf.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080827-0, 2008-08-27), 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 1KYU9R-0001FR-78. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1KYU9R-0001FR-78 3bb4d7f761046a564b664898e4ea804a 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:103057 Archived-At: Thomas Lord wrote: > Consider a feature, X, which is desirable for practical purposes. > > Consider a feature, Y, which is banned. > > If the ban on Y makes X harder to implement, in the sense > of costing more in labor or money, then the economic incentive > to go into business selling a non-free implementation of X goes > up. > > The reason that incentive goes up is because the cost of > going into business selling a non-free X goes up while the > demand for the practically useful X remains steady. > > Now, someone with some money that they want to spend > writing new, non-free software looks at that and says > "I think I can do X, in spite of the ban on Y. In fact, > given the work I did on my masters thesis, I think I can do > X cheaper than most people. If I start selling a non-free X, > it will be a long time before some competitor comes along > either selling a non-free competitor to X or sharing a free > version of X. It will be a long time because I'm almost the only one > with an effective idea of how to get around the ban on Y. > Therefore, I'll go into business selling proprietary X and count > my blessings for the banning of Y." Are you sure that reasoning is valid as an argument here? There will for example, as you even hint, be different economic incentives for different people.