From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Lawyer's evaluation Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:27:39 +0900 Organization: The XEmacs Project Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87fzimzrg4.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <871xud8z7j.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <87vfro7uga.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1064381370 6967 80.91.224.253 (24 Sep 2003 05:29:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:29:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 24 07:29:28 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A22DQ-0000KG-00 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:29:28 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A22K0-0003E4-00 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:36:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A22By-0000DU-D6 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:27:58 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.22) id 1A22Bm-0000DN-Bp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:27:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.22) id 1A22Bk-0000D9-SG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:27:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [130.158.98.109] (helo=tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A22Bj-0000Cs-8n; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:27:43 -0400 Original-Received: from steve by tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1A22Bg-0000Sw-00; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:27:40 +0900 Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: (Miles Bader's message of "22 Sep 2003 11:02:03 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1001 (Gnus v5.10.1) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code, linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:16587 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:16587 >>>>> "Miles" == Miles Bader writes: Miles> No, those miss the point entirely. Miles> `Emacs is Free Software' Miles> I.e. establish the term `Free Software' as a category. That would be nice, but I was unable to execute it. The problem is that many users think they already know what "free software" means. We do _not_ want to bring those associations up at all, unless we have enough space to unambiguously define free software. I don't think we have the space in this blurb; the GPL does give a definition; it takes seven lines (including the "GNU Emacs is Free Software" statement itself). Those seven lines do absolutely nothing to encourage reading of the GPL itself (and why should they? in their context, you're already reading the GPL). In fact, by giving a legalistic definition, they tend to discourage reading the license, I'm afraid. I've tried a couple of times to incorporate the phrase "Emacs is Free Software", but was unable to come up with anything I was happy with in less than 5 additional lines (and they still tended to presume that something like "free as in speech" would make sense to the reader in context). I already consider the blurb I wrote too long. You're welcome to try. The main problem is probably that I'm too close to my own words to be an effective editor. Do consider my explanations of why I wrote what I did, but I'm probably too close to those, too. Miles> Names are important. Precisely. That's why I'm so careful to avoid abusing this one. Miles> Muttering on about `true software freedom' and `truly free Miles> software' seems to simply try and avoid doing this No, although I did have some subtleties in mind when I chose that wording. The word "freedom" _never_ means "the property of being free of charge" in idiomatic English. The phrase "software freedom" establishes the right context in which to introduce the term "Free Software", and the rest of the blurb shows concretely how GNU Emacs is free. Ie, it's a semi-deliberate "tease", and one PageDown in the GPL will put the full definition in their faces. "Truly free" isn't quite as distinctive, but it does imply no hidden catches even if the reader insists on interpreting it as a matter of "market price". Miles> (not to mention risking flamewars from BSD fans :-). That's their problem. As perhaps you know, I am in full agreement with them on the definition of "truly free software". However, Emacs _is_ a GNU project, and here I use the GNU (and OSI![1]) definition. Since, despite my private opinions, I am personally comfortable with that, I see no reason why the GNU Emacs project should avoid an inclusive definition. Footnotes: [1] Yes, there are technical differences, but they're small. AFAIK, the FSF/OSI differences have to do with the context of advocacy and concrete application of what are really very similar definitions. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.