The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding

[Ken Tilton]

Damien Kick wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:08:02 -0000, nebulous99 at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> So much for the "free" in "free software". If you can't actually use
>>> it without paying money, whether for the software or for some book, it
>>> isn't really free, is it?
>>
>>
>> Please do not confuse the term 'free' in 'free software' with 'gratis'.
>>
>> 'Gratis', i.e. 'lacking a monetary price tag' is something *very*
>> different from the meaning of 'free' in 'free software'.

Sure, but where does the infection thing come in? Suppose RMS publishes 
a new library call add-42, whose api is add-42, inputs n, outputs n+42, 
source left as an exercise, and Kenny decides he can use it, it is 
great. Now if Kenny uses it in his commercial software, add-42 does not 
somehow become less free to ride 'neath the starry skies above, don't 
fence me in. But RMS wants Kenny's hide. Nothing Kenny wrote derived 
from add-42, but RMS wants it all. Kenny happened to solve the traveling 
salesman problem and protein-folding and passed the fricking Turing test 
by using add-42 wherever he needed 42 added to a number, and  RMS wants 
credit and ownership and control of it all. He and his license  shall 
now dictate access and use of all that code. The handcuffs are on, and 
they are inscribed "free".

No wonder the GPL has gone nowhere. Freely. RMS reasonably wanted that 
add-42 not get co-opted, but that in no way necessitated the land grab 
that is GPL. The GPL is a gratuitous reach only fancifully justified by 
wanting to ensure that open source remain open. So this has nothing to 
do with freedom in /any/ sense of the word, it has to do with a 
political agenda opposed to the idea of private property.

kzo



-- 
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/

"We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut