From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:14:48 -0400 Message-ID: References: <10697146.3630221218551689983.JavaMail.www@wwinf4615> <20080812171404.GB7999@muc.de> <20080813092057.GA3010@muc.de> <20080814083817.GA2593@muc.de> <877iak7xfp.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> Reply-To: ams@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1218873926 4035 80.91.229.12 (16 Aug 2008 08:05:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:05:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 16 10:06:18 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 1KUGnY-0004Ag-5v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:06:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58174 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUGmb-0005yR-IK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:05:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUGlS-0005c5-No for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:03:58 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KUGlM-0005Vr-LH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:03:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47238 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KUGlL-0005VO-3s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:03:51 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:34362) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KUGlK-00030K-Ni for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:03:50 -0400 Original-Received: from ams by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KUFzs-0008Im-Ei; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:14:48 -0400 In-reply-to: (rms@gnu.org) 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:102514 Archived-At: Just to note, I wrote the following text: But it is better to have badly written free software than having well written non-free software. We can fix the former, but not the later. Exactly. The idea of the free software movement is that we don't give up our freedom just to "get a job done". But not this: Software is written for a purpose. Windows does its job, whether it does it good or bad and whether you like the philosophy or not. It is not free and it solves the problem it was written for. If you define "the job" in purely practical terms, that response follows logically. There are users who can get their work done using Windows. It does not follow that the existence of Windows is a good thing or that developing it was ethically acceptable. Part of valuing freedom is that you don't consider something a "solution" if it costs you freedom.