Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>]

assert(advocacy != tyranny)

Much of your argument seems to be focussed on what Dr. Carver would
do. You would have a stronger argument if Dr. Carver *actually* ended up
relegating the emphasis on "Free Software" to the margins. This fact can
be verified only after the publication of the results and if the report
is made publicly accessible.

From what I see, Richard's polite and assertive refusal strongly
influenced Dr. Carver in to recognizing or atleast understanding the
subtle difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source".

Richard as a the "original owner" Emacs of the the moral authority to
assert and advice non-cooperation from like-minded friends and it may
not include you.

Btw, I am sure you would have read JS Mill's arguments On Liberty and
Utilitarianism. I will always buy the argument that Liberty (that
includes Liberty to make mistakes and Liberty to give shape to one's
passions - contrary to accepted societal norms) always results in
increasing the "sum total of overall goodness" than the true
"Utilitarianism" will ever manage to accomplish. Only that path of
Liberty is not for the fickle minded.

Much of the world is mistaken in to thinking that Utilitarianism and
Liberty are one and the same. I can only say that it is merely a black
magic.

ps: I am trying to understand where all this hatred to Richard's
advocacy comes from. Atleast in emacs-devel it sounds like an outright
civil war. Had this been a list which doesn't understand what Liberty
is, your mails (which I find is always confrontational) would end up
being filtered right at the point of distribution. Sorry if I am
provoking you.

Jambunathan K.