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: Release plans Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:54:15 +0900 Message-ID: <87prnwgyvc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080817073124.GA1294@muc.de> <87ljyv5gy5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818101802.GA2615@muc.de> <87bpzqqk7b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818210927.GD2615@muc.de> <87wsidnxqp.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080819155221.GA11524@muc.de> <871w0dcg6j.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080825220105.GA13599@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219726461 9506 80.91.229.12 (26 Aug 2008 04:54:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:54:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, hannes@saeurebad.de, rms@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 26 06:55:08 2008 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 4.50) id 1KXqa6-00070Q-4z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:55:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39227 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXqZ4-000220-U9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:53:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXqZ0-00021t-Bx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:53:54 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KXqYy-00021S-H5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:53:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50010 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXqYy-00021P-AT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:53:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:59408) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KXqYp-0006NH-Aa; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:53:44 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726B18007; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:53:38 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 21A1C1A25C3; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:54:15 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <20080825220105.GA13599@muc.de> X-Mailer: VM ?bug? under XEmacs 21.5.21 (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: 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:102974 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > Yes, we want software to be free, but no, we don't want people to > use this freedom in certain ways, ways which would inhibit the > progress of free software. I'm not sure I agree with this formulation, but it's not what I'm talking about in this thread. I'm talking about a specific decision which is based not on observing people misusing freedom, not on the likelihood of people misusing freedom in foreseeable ways, but rather on the conceptual possibility that in some as-yet unforeseeable way somehow someday somebody might possibly misuse freedom to a disastrous end. Granted, Richard points out that Linux did have problems with binary modules, but, um, the result is egg on NVIDIA's face and in ATI's beer, and Linus explicitly was neutral on the practice. As Richard is wont to say about patents and copyright, the cases are completely different and shouldn't be grouped together. > Eric Ludlam mentioned a product called Xrefactory a couple of days > ago. It seems to be a refactoring tool based upon (X)Emacs. Yes, > this is legitimate within the terms of the GPL, but isn't the sort > of thing we really want to encourage; it's not free, neither in the > speech nor beer sense. The reductio is obvious, isn't it? Since any free software program can be abused as part of a non-free software product, we should stop all distribution of free software to the heathen. That way we can be sure of providing the minimum encouragement to abuse freedom. Personally, I agree with Tom: we should be going all-out to encourage use of free software, using three main tactics: (1) emphasizing the importance of software freedom (eg, from a code-is-law basis), (2) emphasizing the costs both in freedom and economic value of non-free software, and (3) providing kick-ass software that everybody wants to use. Effectively discouraging non-free software is out of our control. "Mr. Quixote, meet Mr. Windmill...." > I gladly accept the freedom guaranteed by professional soldiers. Just as > those soldiers protect those "who don't give a damn", I feel we should > protect the (software) freedom of those who, for whatever reason, > wouldn't protect their own. At the cost of the freedom of those who would *like* to use unfree software: they have done the calculation on the costs of lock-in, and like the answers they got. I find your paternalism distasteful. > Again, with Eric's example of Xrefactory, any hackers who buy that > product and incorporate it into their development process thereby lose > some of their freedom - their process has become tied to a product they > can't control - to some extent. This is another one of these > contradictions about software freedom - by exercising freedom you > diminish it. This paradox has *nothing whatsoever* to do with software. Freedom means choice. If everybody is free, everybody is making choices, and this *imposes* uncertainty about those choices on others. People *dislike* uncertainty (eg, about when you're next going to have sex) and so they *accept* constraints (marriage, to continue the metaphor).[1] Some people are willing to accept the constraints of unfree software constrained for commercial advantage. Some people hate unfree software so much that they impose constraints on the use of their software by others, and claim that the net result is somehow an increase in freedom when in fact there is a clear decrease in options available to users. I don't really see an ethical difference here. Footnotes: [1] Before you ask, and I have every reason to believe you will: No, I do not believe that more regular sex is the only or even the main reason people get married, nor do I believe that the strategy actually works all that well. I will assert that many of the reasons for getting married do take the same form of a voluntary exchange of one's own freedom for a commitment to stability from the partner.