From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:33:23 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87wqgxkcr9.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n41db0d.fsf@gnu.org> <52FE2985.4070703@yandex.ru> <831tz5daes.fsf@gnu.org> <8738jlohd6.fsf@yandex.ru> <83txc1bl83.fsf@gnu.org> <5300189A.9090208@yandex.ru> <83wqgv9fbj.fsf@gnu.org> <20140216180712.236069f6@forcix.jorgenschaefer.de> <87wqgr4v18.fsf@yandex.ru> <53064BD0.7070009@yandex.ru> <87ha7tr5bo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppmhecd8.fsf@yandex.ru> <87mwhjdq32.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393263199 28806 80.91.229.3 (24 Feb 2014 17:33:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org, john@yates-sheets.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 24 18:33:28 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 1WHzPE-0004KV-Jo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:33:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59033 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WHzPE-0000xp-84 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:33:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WHzPA-0000wl-TL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:33:25 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WHzPA-0007Rh-0R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:33:24 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54010) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WHzP9-0007Rc-Ty for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:33:23 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WHzP9-0008Qx-4b; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:33:23 -0500 In-reply-to: <87mwhjdq32.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (message from David Kastrup on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:17:37 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:169844 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Copyleft is needed to defend freedom, which is why Clang is so harmful > to our freedom. There are already nonfree versions of Clang that do > tremendous harm to our movement. Quite so. And there is no point in foregoing potential benefits in order to protect assets that we no longer have exactly because Clang's progress has demolished them. As a general statement, that is valid -- but I think you're overestimating Clang's effects on GCC. > Allowing nonfree versions of GCC would not help us "win" anything that > matters -- it would only mean surrender. Sure, but nobody was talking about "allowing nonfree versions of GCC". Actually yes they were (though not with those words). Someone cited my decision against having GCC write a complete syntax tree. That output would make it easy to use GCC as a front end for nonfree back-ends. That would be tantamount to making nonfree versions of GCC. Splitting up GCC would have the same effect. The lookup and completion features that people want can be implemented by making GCC answer questions sent to it, as Aspell does for M-$. That change would be welcome. I think it could be implemented using GCC's existing plug-in mechanism, but it would be better to put the code into GCC itself. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.