From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:57:37 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87iorz18fy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <53064BD0.7070009@yandex.ru> <87ha7tr5bo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppmhecd8.fsf@yandex.ru> <87y50z90pd.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87txbn8r6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8338j717oe.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjlf6tdx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83sir7yue7.fsf@gnu.org> <8761o3dlak.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> <87d2i9ee8t.fsf@engster.org> <874n3ke1qn.fsf@engster.org> <87vbvzcjv9.fsf@engster.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393606679 29210 80.91.229.3 (28 Feb 2014 16:57:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:57:59 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 28 17:58:07 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJQlA-0001KS-5T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:58:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52158 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJQl9-0000gv-TB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:58:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57470) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJQl2-0000fw-5A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:58:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJQkw-000413-Uf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:57:56 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:47766) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJQkw-00040u-KV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:57:50 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJQkv-00018X-IM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:57:49 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f41c58.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.28.88]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:57:49 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f41c58.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:57:49 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 89 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f41c58.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:y8sGMe3m/uFFtvgknzOlug6yza0= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:169949 Archived-At: David Engster writes: > Richard Stallman writes: >> Anyway, Stefan gave is OK on libclang usage, >> >> That statement seems to be a misunderstanding. > > I don't think so. You and Stefan simply have differing opinions. The misunderstanding is that outsiders are free to heed just those of the "differing opinions" they like. Emacs is copyrighted by the FSF of which Richard is president. It's unfortunate that what amounts to an internal disagreement was carried to this list. But there is no question about the consequences while there is no agreement on record. >> My decision, as head of the GNU Project, is that we will not install >> anything in Emacs or ELPA that uses clang or LLVM. >> >> You can use CEDET, you can use GCC, you can use both, or you can use >> something else. But not clang or LLVM. >> >> This decision is necessary for achieving more the goal of the GNU >> Project, which is to give computer users' freedom in their computing >> in general -- not just in their text editing. > > This decision is a mistake. Please reconsider. That opinion is redundant. We have already established that this is not a voting process or shouting match, so do everyone a favor, read up in the discussion, and contribute something to it once you have figured out something that has not already been said and that actually applies to a policy decision. > If I understand you correctly, you are saying we should not support > any feature in clang/LLVM unless we can do the same with gcc, because > although clang/LLVM is free software, it is non-copyleft. At least > that's what I gathered from your other posts in this thread. > > But by the same reasoning you are applying to clang/LLVM, Emacs' must > not support any feature from Subversion (which is Apache-licensed) > unless the same feature is present in git, hg, or bzr, or we must > implement it there first. Likewise, we must not support any feature in > CMake (which is a BSD-licensed build tool), unless the same feature is > present in GNU Make, or we must first implement it there as well. See, you are trying to apply logic here, something like reductio ad absurdum. That's fine for, say, speculating about the legal consequences of license term when viewed by a court trying to follow the letter of some written law. But this does not apply to a policy decision. The whole point of making an actual decision is that it happens with _deliberation_, not by applying a fixed set of rules. If you want to have Richard change a policy decision (which, by the way, is a rather ambitious undertaking even outside of a mailing list discussion), you need to convince him that his evaluation of the perceived benefits and downsides of a decision is skewed to a degree where the cost of changing the decision is less than that of staying with it. > Is that correct? Because if so, you are drawing the line now between > copyleft and non-copyleft, whereas it used to be between free and > non-free. In this case, the line is between using Emacs' leverage for preserving GCC's importance over betting the horse on a product with an ultimate fate out of the GNU project's control, and out of its original authors' and current community's control. In a similar vein, it was a political decision to move Emacs from CVS to Bzr as its dedicated version control system, even though there was a set of other free contenders to choose from. For GNU projects in general, the GNU maintainer guidelines provide guidance about how to make decisions and usually do a pretty good job. In the case of Emacs and GCC (both are copyright-assigned to the FSF because of their relative importance to the GNU project), Richard can and does exercise more direct control over the decisions. So if you want to convince him otherwise (and this discussion has gone on for too long to have a good chance of finding him attentive still), you have to convince him of consequences worse than those he has been able to fathom. And Richard is not renowned for his optimism. -- David Kastrup