[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repol
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:27:57 +0200 |
> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: bugs@gnu.support, ulm@gentoo.org, dgutov@yandex.ru, ams@gnu.org,
> arthur.miller@live.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 00:53:57 -0500
>
> > Forgive me for a possibly naïve question, but why on earth would you
> > want to modify a schema? It's the same as modifying a physical law.
>
> > Would you say that E = mc² is "non-free" because it cannot be
> > meaningfully modified at will?
>
> We can't modify physics
Exactly. And similarly with the data types described by a schema:
changing the description doesn't change the things it describes, it
just makes the description inaccurate and thus useless.
> but a physicist might very well want to modify
> the equation E = mc². For instance, perse might want to use natural units,
> in which c = 1, which would give E = m.
A schema supports extension, which IMO is the analogy of that.
> And that's considering only _valid_ equations for relating mass and
> energy. I might want to modify the equation to make it be valid for
> some other purpose, or to present an instance of an equation which is
> not valid.
I very much hope we won't fight a Quixotic battle so that we could
make a schema invalid.
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, (continued)
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Jean Louis, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Jean Louis, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Jean Louis, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Ulrich Mueller, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, tomas, 2021/01/24
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/27
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Ulrich Mueller, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Ulrich Mueller, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/27
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Kévin Le Gouguec, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/28