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: redisplay system of emacs Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:42:10 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87wryv8gct.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> 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 1265146979 15801 80.91.229.12 (2 Feb 2010 21:42:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:42:59 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 02 22:42:56 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 1NcQWN-0001ru-Pl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:42:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49116 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NcQWN-00039D-4I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:42:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NcQWH-00038t-T3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:42:49 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53951 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NcQWG-00038h-El for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:42:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NcQWE-0005CM-Ey for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:42:48 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:49074) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NcQWD-0005C4-J1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:42:46 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NcQW9-0001hT-0M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:42:41 +0100 Original-Received: from p5b2c2978.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.41.120]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:42:40 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c2978.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:42:40 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 48 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c2978.dip.t-dialin.net 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/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Yf/nPNLLtuSx5ic3pdoZZfH3mAo= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:120832 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. > > 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. > > By contrast, if we call our software an "ecosystem", then we take > an amoral stance. That's what we shouldn't do. The whole point is that most people can't be bothered. You can call that good or bad, but their use and distribution of free software is not governed by a moral stance. And not that of the software authors either. And you'll find that most contributors can't be bothered about licensing, either. They'll sign papers and are glad that's it. Whether or not you take a moral stance does not imply that everybody else in the system does. There is enough free software that nobody bothers anymore about morals. People contribute to free software because it hardly makes a difference and is what others do. There is lots of free software by now, and little morals. In a similar way, the stock market trades lots of money, but most money is traded on money rather than on goods. Lots of money, little payout. An emergent system. An ecosystem with rules of its own, rules that its originators did not plan in that manner. > Thus, the difference between _our stance_ and our recognition of > _others' stances_ dispels the paradox. "our stance" is lost in the noise. But it still gets the world somewhere, because the noise has no direction and will get things backwards just as often as forwards. -- David Kastrup