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: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:22:30 -0700 Message-ID: <48B5EFC6.5070102@emf.net> 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> <48B5DEBD.9090009@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219879934 22445 80.91.229.12 (27 Aug 2008 23:32:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:32:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bob@rattlesnake.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 28 01:33:07 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 1KYUVY-0008Kf-5t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:33:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47129 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYUUZ-0008HV-SD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:31:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYUUV-0008Gq-4P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:31:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYUUT-0008GX-Bt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:31:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47681 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYUUT-0008GT-8w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:31:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.42inc.com ([205.149.0.25]:37312) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (SSL 3.0:RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KYUUP-0006D7-7d; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:31:49 -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 37797763; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:31:35 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) In-Reply-To: <48B5DEBD.9090009@gmail.com> 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:103059 Archived-At: Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > Thomas Lord wrote: > >> Consider a feature, X, which is desirable for practical purposes. >> >> Consider a feature, Y, which is banned. [....] >> >> > > 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. > > Yes, I've seen it happen. There are different incentives for different people, that's right. So, the guy that goes into business selling non-free X because he did a masters thesis that made it uniquely easy for him to implement X -- THAT GUY -- that guy is the main (type of) guy around whom start-ups are formed. That unique advantage for "that guy" is only half of what makes the business, though. The other two halves are that other people will find other things easier to do than implement X and that other people want X. The "hat trick" -- the perfect three points for a non-free software start-up -- are: (1) a program X that it is easy for me to write; (2) where X is hard for YOU to write; (3) and people want X for practical purposes. "That guy" for whom X is easy is rare but, in a sufficiently large crowd, he is practically guaranteed to exist: so (1) is almost a free point. There are a lot of possible values of X that people might want so (3) is practically a free point. The only touch bit is (2): X has to be hard for (most) *other* people to write. And that's where the questions about banning feature Y come in. Banning Y can only help "that guy" with (2). You should see how the industry of deep packet inspection appliance vendors has unfolded, for example. It is exactly this pattern of start-ups and non-free software. You can also do the thought experiment of imagining an (unachievable) world in which any program you could possibly want was, somehow, cheap and easy to write. Non-free software business models would not thrive in such a world, not like they do now (mostly). We can't every perfectly get to that world but we can get a lot closer than we are -- and feature bans are a retreat from that objective. -t