Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:

 > I think you misunderstand the goal of free software.

I don't think so, but I think you have misunderstood much of what I
argued.  This is definitely not the forum for that discussion, though.

 > Running after software maintainability and development models will
 > yield increasingly more erratic results the more free software
 > becomes part of the available toolset.

I don't understand.  My personal belief is that use of more free
software is inducing certain changes in practice that will yield
increasing reliability.

 > The point of freedom is not be a better hook.  In practice, that often
 > turns out to be the way how freedom propagates, but it is actually a
 > pity to trade it as a marketable good.

That is exactly my complaint about Richard's post, a point you
evidently missed.  He tried to trade for something that was very
likely available for the asking, and *should* be available for the
asking, for several reasons.