[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:02:45 +0200

> From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:41:24 -0500
> Cc: Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden>, address@hidden,
>       Emacs Devel <address@hidden>
> Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:
> > () "Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden>
> > () Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:56:47 +0100
> >    Yes, I can easily imagine the faces of any vi-loving Bazaar
> >    developer if we asked them to drop it and use Emacs...
> > Hey, i love vi (the same way i love sunsets: from afar, w/ a nice
> > cool beer on a hot day, hacking on Emacs in Emacs, head toasted
> > gently by the trees tickling the brain :-) ...
> > But, i don't use bzr.  I hope that 1/ the git<->bzr gateway grows
> > fully-functional quickly; 2/ someone starts a GPLv3+ (able to be
> > subsequently adopted by GNU) project that reads/writes git repo
> > format.
> "Reads/writes git repo format" essentially means a compatible
> reimplementation of git.  Reimplementing git solely to be able to
> license it under GPLv3 instead of GPLv2 is one of the biggest wastes of
> time I've ever heard of.
> Showing "loyalty" to another GNU project by using it in
> favor of an alternative that is equally free and may be technically
> superior does nothing to promote free software.

It promotes the GNU Project, which is one of the main players in the
field of free software, because the GNU Project is, among other
things, a grabbag of lots of free software.

> (In fact, to the extent
> that using an inferior tool may interfere with Emacs development, the
> Emacs project, and consequently free software as a whole, is harmed.)

I'm sure you don't want to claim that bzr is "inferior".  (If you do,
please provide some evidence.)  No one here will want to use an
inferior tool.  The issue is, all things being approximately equal,
which tool to choose.

> Favoring projects that have the "GNU" label suggests a real motivation
> of merely promoting the "GNU" name.
> You may argue that promoting the "GNU" name is important for promoting
> free software, but I don't buy that.

This is a misunderstanding: we are not talking about names or labels.
Being a GNU package means much more than just a word in a name.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]