From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: George Plymale II Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: A response to RMS (was Loading a package applies automatically to future sessions?) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 04:17:52 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1517822209 24671 195.159.176.226 (5 Feb 2018 09:16:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 09:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: stephen.berman@gmx.net, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 05 10:16:44 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eictH-000647-9T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 10:16:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44956 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eicvI-0007rX-EN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 04:18:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45890) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eicuV-0007qL-Td for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 04:18:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eicuR-0007Oz-CP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 04:17:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]:38017) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eicuR-0007Oh-5f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 04:17:55 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id d13so29533822iog.5 for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 01:17:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orbitalimpact.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=flQh4CFLpXRIsb8j4jGXSZ0FT92ibsF8sT5VMsbJcZ0=; b=snP5Geh6kUSpWW+MoLkD5GiMkwUm3IAltUPjdv/eoGBtsXepIQ+E6CZ1Ti0E6BNj2Q 5ePCtgab86nOx8wiqitW1CyiuASyWS4HtKcgm7LUaDC2DdLKkE6F4acl++NnpQXcNIgy z+CJ6ew+2kg5L/dO2mbXB0mWKT/cKKkvg1E6A= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:message-id :mime-version; bh=flQh4CFLpXRIsb8j4jGXSZ0FT92ibsF8sT5VMsbJcZ0=; b=pzA/sDO+zBEBUmiHZv29Ki0OU0PVcoZnYB1UnQHTlrGZcZP3qsAfOKOnU1n3/WFAaI RT2wJhG0qz+KegXH1VBUWfIxuMCwSWTrV4qSWCAOPnP3tfNTm2bSh9WQ59kwL1dCyhvr 73DxPiLmgjn3WB9j9H3voIzwDNM5WW+P3aD0SK5jHG7S1nVTOghffI6mfO6eB0mZA96c 5nKsSSC5XEQCk6PxkOFLE3dhePDqroEYp17c4oioSDa4xvdE0F466cHDKQY/siG2Xiam OsV0G0Nlga6DQJtP4DAZUHkQEvs4CuqW0iFBbbbnKXEhJecUITAh3uG5iXkSW7Sjbyqf BHpg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytemHYVOcuUmfc36TylZzf9UxyM4DTW6JarEqzHuntpBIqdRCg4E KjkYx6ZHZvfaw96RwEGjr6SwDcUiMTKWkQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225/s810BOXyrrPMz7qw3/kaVcNUMufaEBA+eHjk4DAEHNnXOax/lHdqKXtXlBUTdn96FKNtwg== X-Received: by 10.107.146.86 with SMTP id u83mr50240366iod.3.1517822274423; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 01:17:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from lehi.dev.orbitalimpact.com (ip-15-39-52-196.chicago.us.northamericancoax.com. [196.52.39.15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g1sm5017250itg.10.2018.02.05.01.17.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 05 Feb 2018 01:17:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Fri, 02 Feb 2018 17:53:50 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:222541 Archived-At: > > Well, my understanding of the policy was that one's _contributions_ are > > owned by the FSF. I.e., that you have to sign waivers which tell the > > FSF, "Hey, I give up all rights to own any code that I give you guys in > > these certain projects." To me, that seems hypocritical and it seemed > > that indeed the actual FSF policy versus what the FSF itself expounds > > were in disagreement. > If you accuse us of hypocrisy, you should be prepared to present > particulars. What is the principle that the FSF stands for, that > conflicts with our practices? Well, one of the principles which I believed you to be in contradiction of was this: "You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way." ( from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) According to my understanding of the FSF's copyright policy, I have to notify the FSF when I want to distribute my changes because they're no longer mine; they're theirs. Moreover, I believed you to be in contradiction of this principle as well: "I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement." ( from https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html ) To me, the signing of a waiver feels like it's in much the same vein as either of those. If not a bit worse in some ways. In light of the new information that I received from others on this mailing list, it may not be as bad as I thought. Regardless, that is what I meant by "hypocrisy" and it is not a word that I use lightly nor without cause. > My hunch is that you've been misinformed about our principles. Your hunch is incorrect. I ascertained my opinions on the GNU project and the FSF mainly via objective analysis of their own documents and manifestos. It was also coupled with some examination of how their values worked out in reality, along with comparisons to other philosophies and facts. My conclusion of these analyses was mostly what I have already related in previous messages. > Our main principle is: users should have control of the software > they use. Therefore, a nonfree program is an injustice. > To eliminate that injustice, we release free software and encourage > others to do so. We use copyleft to prevent our free software from > being perverted by middlemen into nonfree software and thus used to > subjugate others. > As for copyright, we do not consider that an issue of principle, not > directly. We consider it a sort of weapon that can be used for good > or for bad. When it is used to subjugate people, that is bad. When > it is used, through copyleft, to protect people from subjugation, that > is good. All users have control over the software that they use. Oftentimes, even hardware cannot stop one from modifying the software which runs atop it. Enough ingenuity and craftiness trumps even the likes of Tivo. Whether or not this is legal is an entirely different question and forms the basis of the GNU campaign. I know that many will read my statement and scoff. Ask yourself, though: what stops a user from modifying the bits that run on their computer? Not the law. It is knowledge. Knowledge of how a computer works and how well its machine code can be understood. Indeed, the GNU project's efforts and funds would be far better spent creating tools that would allow users to universally understand machine code that would truly allow them to control any software that they have, regardless of its underlying machinery. This would enable freedom of software in a much more tangible and truer sense than anything that anyone has done. Ever. But instead the whole affair has become an argument of copyright or copyleft. The ability to own capital and sell it or to have that capital controlled and dolled out by one big entity (or maybe a few) who claim to be in the interests of the people. Or we may call those people "users." Sound familiar? If not, I would highly suggest reading John Wiegley's poignant and cogent letter to the FSF: http://newartisans.com/2011/04/letter-to-the-fsf/ I didn't even want to write all of this until you stipulated that my opinions are based on misinformation and smear campaigns done by others to the GNU project. Such a presumption insults the intellect of very intelligent people who I know that share my opinion and who formed the same opinion based on rational, moral, and objective analysis. In any case, I no longer desire to discuss these things. My opinion and your opinion have both been stated. I doubt that either of us will change them based on the words of the other. I am no longer as dissatisfied or upset with the FSF's policy as I was, although I will still need to investigate the agreement for myself to determine whether it is indeed a fair agreement. That does not, however, convince me of the merits of copyleft nor the philosophies which I have already expressed disagreement with. Thanks, - George Plymale II