Re: clang/emacs/ecb/semantic

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:42:27 -0800
> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> We must consider utilitarian calculus; that is, we must choose the
> actions will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. By
> choosing to limit gcc's potential for interoperability, its developers
> have limited the number of users who can benefit from the good
> provided by gcc's freedom.

I'm sorry, but this comes across as a straw man argument, and I'm sure
you didn't mean that.

"... greatest good for the greatest number."  I don't think you will
find here anyone who won't agree with that aspiration.  But that is
not the issue here.  The issue is how far to go in limiting freedom of
others.  And limit you must, because "your liberty to swing your fist
ends where my nose begins."  You want to limit the freedom of the Bad
Guys to abuse the freedom against you and your goals.  That's why we
have the GPL.

It is this deceptively simple issue -- where to draw the line -- that
is the single most important _practical_ issue that is at stake here.
It is also what distinguishes between what we call "free society" and
a dictatorship.

I'm sure you know all that.  And yet you never mention this crucial
detail, and instead insist on maximizing freedom.  It's small surprise
that Richard interpreted that as an attack on the GPL: after all, the
GPL also limits certain freedoms, and thus leaves less people happy.

More to the point, you seem to say that the line was drawn in the
wrong place in this matter.  But you never say why it was wrong, in
practical terms, nor explain why in your POV the line should have been
drawn elsewhere, or how that would benefit the free software without
hurting its goals.  There's no point in talking about this without
discussing these _practical_ issues.  Slogans, however laudable, won't
cut it, because they don't provide any practical guidance that alone
matters.