Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el

[David Kastrup]

John Yates <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <address@hidden>wrote:
>
>> John Yates writes:
>>
>>  > RMS may have an inflated sense of the extent to which the greater
>>  > compiler community (those developing and those using compilers)
>>  > value gcc over clang / llvm.
>>
>
> It might have been clearer if I had said the "open source compiler
> community".
>
> RMS doesn't care about "greater communities", AFAICT.  He cares about
>> the free software community (more or less, the GPL-using community),
>> and about preserving a haven for freedom for all users.
>>
>
> At RMS's behest emacs used GPL3 bzr instead of GPL2 git.  Now he has
> relented.  Would he still have relented were git were BSD?

The licenses itself are not as important as the perspectives and goals
behind their choice.

The GPL has been designed to make it hard to _work_ against our goals.
It's powerless against people _being_ against our goals, even though it
makes software placed under it hard to use for undermining our goals.

So it makes little sense stipulating hypotheticals about licensing when
a large consideration is the frame of mind of the underlying community.
While the GPL provides mechanical resistance against a community turning
bad and thus some long-term perspective, it's not a cure-all.

-- 
David Kastrup