[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Release plans
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: Release plans |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:18:19 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
Hello, Stephen!
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 03:00:56AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:
> > The loadability of modules into the kernel has effects on the whole
> > free software community.
> Yeah, it forces free people to make free choices. This is a good
> thing.
A bit like the availability of guns in a community does.
> > The facility you want would allow people, in effect, to make
> > proprietary extensions to Emacs.
> That's FUD. According to the FSF legal staff, it is illegal to
> distribute non-GPLv3 modules intended for linking to Emacs.
Are you sure? OK, yes you are. Any chance of a reference? Are you also
sure this applies to external libraries interacting over a clean thin
narrow openly specified interface, as contrasted to Elisp libraries which
burrow into the heart of Emacs?
> This restriction on dynamic loading doesn't change the legal status; it
> just makes it cheaper for the FSF to fight would-be violators and wake
> up those people who just don't bother to think about whether their
> distributions are violations.
> As Richard says, it's appropriate that the defenders of freedom pay an
> extra cost to show they value freedom. Emacs should get dynamically
> loadable modules. The kernel's strategy for require'ing GPL would work
> here, too.
> > We could end up with a firm like Linspire saying "our version of
> > Emacs is superior because it can access files over the <proprietary
> > X> protocol,
> It might cost the FSF to fight that, but they'd win. Don't defend
> freedom with FUD.
Hey, just because I'm mistaken (if I am) doesn't make me a fudder.
> If they can't win, then you could distribute Emacs as a .o with
> appropriate modules and have the user do the linking to the same
> effect. If the proprietary module is that attractive, you can bet
> people would do it.
> > There are other choices. You could, for example, write a
> > module-loading facility yourself, and thus distribute your own Emacs
> > fork. You'ld not make yourself popular though, any more than the
> > Lucid Emacs crowd did a long time ago.
> I resemble that remark, although I wasn't there at the time. Is it
> really worth offending those of us who choose to work on XEmacs when
> the cases are not parallel at all?
Sincere topologies. Offense wasn't intended, it was just an ill
considered throw away comparison.
> The module-loading facility has long been available for both Emacs (as
> 3rd party patches, sorry, no URL offhand; maybe from the same source as
> XEmacs/CHISE at Kyoto U?) and XEmacs (standard since 21.4).
I didn't know that either. I looked in the two canonical places on my
XEmacs 21.4.17, but didn't find it. Any chance of a hint to type at C-h
f?
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: Release plans, (continued)
- Re: Release plans, Johannes Weiner, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/08/15
- Re: Release plans, Alan Mackenzie, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Johannes Weiner, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Alan Mackenzie, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Johannes Weiner, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Gilaras Drakeson, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/08/15
- Re: Release plans,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Release plans, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/15
- Re: Release plans, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/08/15
- Re: Release plans, Johannes Weiner, 2008/08/15
- Re: Release plans, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/08/16
- Re: Release plans, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Johannes Weiner, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Johannes Weiner, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/08/14
- Re: Release plans, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/14