From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sean Sieger Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source" Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:47:46 -0400 Message-ID: <87mxhjp5od.fsf@gmail.com> References: <010001cc29eb$fc806cb0$f5814610$@cs.ua.edu> <87zkljcxg4.fsf@gmail.com> <877h8niao3.fsf@gmail.com> <8739jbxpjh.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308146279 7535 80.91.229.12 (15 Jun 2011 13:57:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:57:59 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 15 15:57:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QWqbO-0004gX-Tu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:57:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38382 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWqbN-0002sE-OB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:57:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:53733) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWqS0-0000Wy-7T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:48:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWqRu-0002po-Vx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:48:07 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:36055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWqRu-0002pd-Gr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:48:02 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QWqRq-0007Oo-Gb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:47:58 +0200 Original-Received: from pool-141-149-45-137.ny325.east.verizon.net ([141.149.45.137]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:47:58 +0200 Original-Received: from sean.sieger by pool-141-149-45-137.ny325.east.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:47:58 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 34 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-141-149-45-137.ny325.east.verizon.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Uu+5SyDZZDP0U82nWFNx/QRWs1E= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 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:140496 Archived-At: Antoine Levitt writes: > They don't want GNU's "official" participation in the survey, they just > want the largest number of open source developpers to participate. Their > study is about how open source devs work together as teams in > distributed environments. Emacs is open source (aside from being "part > of the GNU project"), therefore it makes sense to ask emacs devs for > their input on this. Philosophy has nothing to do with it. > > Antoine that's a sloppy way of promoting the ghost of dissolution you > mention above. I don't promote anything. I just think that trying to force an agenda on such a survey is essentially useless. It's like someone on the street loudly complaining that the system of government is wrong to a pollster asking who you're gonna vote on the next election. It's slightly awkward to walk by, but I just have to cross the street and ignore it, which is what I'm going to do. In both cases, the pollsters are investigating possibly private matters, convictions---for one to ask for the allowance of some context to be given in the interest of more precise expression is understandable, even laudable. The abysmal nature of language has produced readings of RMS as asserting `pressure' and an `empty threat', and already in this short thread. Describing yourself as you do in your analogy above, and initially when you posited a dissolution from principled work to mere protocol, is a promotion in this conversation. It is no less valid than RMS's promotions. Move forward and promote each other's freedom of expression. The precision is the juice ... albeit flowing into the abyss.