From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: redisplay system of emacs Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:48:25 +0900 Message-ID: <874olzowzq.fsf@xemacs.org> References: <4B633B7C.8030700@gmx.de> <873a1nvlki.fsf@gmail.com> <4B65B180.5010202@gmx.de> <87ock8pb21.fsf@xemacs.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1265164690 1292 80.91.229.12 (3 Feb 2010 02:38:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:38:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: grishka@gmx.de, paul.r.ml@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 03 03:38:07 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NcV6y-0004a4-1Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:37:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59643 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NcV6x-0002Nm-9O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:36:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NcV6r-0002MX-6e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:36:53 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50225 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NcV6p-0002ME-TC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:36:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NcV6o-00037N-GG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:36:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:56941) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NcV6n-00036p-Mi; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:36:50 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F81D1537B2; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:36:45 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1D44B1A3434; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:48:26 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" a03421eb562b XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/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:120842 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > > Exactly. This aspect of things is what the term "ecosystem" does not > > recognize, and that's why it is better not to use that term here. > > I really am amused by this turn of discussion, because advocates of > copyleft are in precisely the same position. Their *amoral*, > objective analysis of human behavior > > This is a paradox -- an appearance of contradiction that comes from > a misunderstanding. But the misunderstanding is yours. > The argument for copyleft comes from taking a moral stance towards the > situation in which many people do not follow our moral ideals. It is > a fact that many people in our field take an amoral stance towards > this issue, and it is important to recognize the facts, but that is > not the same as taking an amoral stance ourselves. Of course it's not. But taking a moral stance does not imply taking *your* moral stance. There are other moral stances, and those who hold them are often as fervent about them as you are about yours. The choice is not between your moral stance and an amoral stance; it is among many moral stances (including the extreme case of an amoral stance). In particular, use of the word "ecosystem" is typically a signal that the person is taking a moral stance that values relationships and stability thereof. Depending on the person, it is sometimes more, sometimes less than they value software freedom. (And sometimes more, sometimes less than they value freedom of any kind.) > By contrast, if we call our software an "ecosystem", then we take > an amoral stance. That's what we shouldn't do. Of course we *should* take an amoral stance in explaining "how things work". It is madness to try to apply "should" to the facts. And I don't know what you mean by "our software" (use of possessives by a free software advocate? tut-tut!), but if there exists a separate body of "their software", then it is technically incorrect to call "our software" an "ecosystem". Ecosystems are *closed* systems, but software has a strong tendency to become related to other software. Unless you are speaking of all software, it's not big enough to be an ecosystem. > Thus, the difference between _our stance_ and our recognition of > _others' stances_ dispels the paradox. No, it doesn't, because it doesn't explain why you refuse to use a single word, "ecosystem", that emphasizes the existence of variety (including but not restricted to variety of moral stances) and the behavioral interactions that entails. See also David's response.