Is this based on Hemlock, or was it written from scratch?
I really, really want a graphical emacs. By that I mean, I want an emacs with graphics, not an emacs in windows. I want to easily be able to draw stuff.
I ran into this the other day, I like to dabble in emacs, and I had a list of results I wanted to make a quick chart. I ended up dumping it out in a simple CSV, and copy/pasting that into a spreadsheet, and hitting "chart".
Would have been nice to go (line-chart my-list) and have a window pop up with reasonable defaults. And be able to print it to a PDF.
emacs has some SVG support, but I guess its maintainer whim whether you get it or not, I wasn't able to easily get it working on my Mac. That could be a start. But something "nicer" would be, you know, "nice".
When building it, choose “make sdl2” to get the graphical UI. I also build the text UI, but the sdl2 UI is more fun and is very responsive. I didn’t see any ability to draw graphs in the window.
I can understand wanting to restrict use of something a person created using a restrictive licence. I can’t understand being sad about someone else not restricting what they created. To me it looks like someone being sad after seeing someone else giving out free ice cream, even though the person being sad didn’t contribute to making the ice cream.
My view on the GPL is that it's freedom-preserving, like how a law forbidding the enslavement of people is freedom-preserving, even though it technically restricts a freedom. That's why I look more favourably on GPL software than software with a so-called 'permissive' license.
This and similar arguments in this thread work on the same logic that frames software piracy as theft. It’s the fallacy of treating software as a tangible thing that, when copied, is taken away from someone and altered irreversibly.
That's ridiculous. The GPL explicitly allows people to make copies.
What many free software advocates actually want is a world without copyright on software. It's copyright that frames copying as stealing. In a world with copyright, the only way to counter that is copyleft. The fact GPL can also enforce inclusion of source code is a nice side effect of copyleft. But ultimately what we want is a world where software is shared, treated as knowledge and not as a product.
MIT style licences are just not good enough. That software could still end up in some copyright protected proprietary product one day and then, yes, someone could accuse me of "stealing" their property, which contains our software.
> What many free software advocates actually want is a world without copyright on software.
Some of them sure. The subset of them who are GPL advocates are simply confused though. GPL is not possible in a world without copyright. In a world without copyright I can release software, which can be written from the ground up or be based on something open source, doesn’t matter, and not share the code with anyone. Just the binary. I can also create AWS based on open source software and nothing like AGPL will stop me from providing proprietary services based on it.
And the reason I pointed to the fallacy is that multiple people in this thread suggest that making a proprietary product based on open source software constitutes taking something away from users of this software. This is illogical. They still have the original. The only person who loses in this situation is the original author, not the users.
I care a great deal for the GPL, but I'd be fine with copyright if it wasn't so stupidly long. The reason I care about the GPL is my belief in an informed public. As far as I'm concerned, withholding vital information (like a list of ingredients or source code) from the public should be a criminal offence.
Whilst yes, you could technically say 'well, if the user wants to know what this software is doing, they can just disassemble it', I'd consider that malicious compliance. It's like listing ingredients by their scientific names (like 'Arachis Hypogaea' instead of 'peanut').
For those confused by the dangling modifier, he means the combined act of cutting the trees and selling the wood is restrictive. Also, a terrible analogy since trees are an exhaustible resource within a meaningful time range.
> ...even though the person being sad didn’t contribute to making the ice cream.
But the issue of non-GPL software is the person on the receiving end might want to contribute, be technically able to contribute and indeed need to contribute to be able to keep using the software ... but then be blocked for legal reasons. The GPL doesn't care if you sell software or give it away or whatever, it is all about protecting freedom over time after the initial installation has happened.
The thing that makes the ice cream analogy ok is that the ice cream is literally synthesised into your body and comes under your complete control. If the ice-cream seller retained any sort of control over the ice cream after you'd ingested it that would be a serious problem! Both technically and morally. The GPL is aligning what happens in software to the analogy.
The poster I replied to complained about someone choosing MIT over GPL, not a proprietary licence over GPL. Noone is blocked from contributing for legal reasons. Quite the opposite.
The point of the MIT license is to make it easier to link it to proprietary software. It is setting up a situation where users will not be free. In and of itself it isn't a bad license; it just doesn't protect freedom and it can be used in ways that block people from contributing. By design.
If you expect people to treat MIT licensed software as GPL licensed software, then they should be licensing it under the GPL. That they aren't implies that the intent is different.
That they aren't implies that the intent is different.
News flash buddy. OSS devs, college and graduate students mostly, are clueless about the distinction and select whatever license tickles their fancy from GitHub's dropdown menu. They see a lot of MIT licenses floating around, recognize "MIT" as a good university, and figure they can't go wrong with it. They, like most normies, don't see how "freedom" figures into software at all. All they care about is getting a little shine before they join a FAANG after graduation.
As for why someone who does understand the distinction would choose MIT over GPL, ask Linus about why he'd "never want anything to do with the FSF" after being told to switch to GPLv3. Yes, MIT versus GPL is not the same as GPLv2 versus GPLv3 but the general concepts are the same.
> It is setting up a situation where users will not be free.
No. It is setting up a situation where users can choose between a free option A and a proprietary option B based on A. Being sad about A being too liberal is suggesting it’s more important for you that B doesn’t exist than that A exists.
> If you expect people to treat MIT licensed software as GPL licensed software,
I don’t. Contrary to GNU and FSF websites, GPL is not a synonym for freedom. Most people, outside of GNU-centric places like this post about Emacs, prefer more liberal licences.
I can't understand being sad about someone not restricting what they created
I can. The guy giving away the ice cream is destroying the market. You can't compete against free. If programmers would stop surrendering their labor, personal data resellers like Google and Facebook wouldn't be our primary means of making a comfortable living. Say what you will about Microsoft's monopoly in the 90s. At least they took your money with your eyes open.
The irony of course is free software zealots are pissed at the free ice cream guy for completely different, and I agree with you, utterly stupid reasons.
Yeah. I can get this angle. This is why we don’t have small independent companies making C and C++ compilers today. Only BigCorps which fund this development with money made from less honourable business.
I call these personality types free software socialists, and free software communists. The free software socialists are my friends. The free software communists are not.
I suspect that if someone is in a position where they are compelled to purchase and use the proprietary version and not the free (and available) version, they already lack most software freedoms. Probably several other, more important, freedoms as well.
Although I agree, notice that the only act the GPL compels someone to do is to hand over the source code with the program.
MIT doesn't give people a freedom to restrict because that isn't a freedom. The restriction is always done by the legal system. The GPL is just an attempt to stop the legal system from interfering in the market to restrict user freedom. So both licenses are actually communicating to a 3rd party (a judge) under what circumstances they should restrict the freedom of others. GPL says to stay out of it as long as people are sharing their source code and MIT says get involved sometimes/its complicated.
It isn't a practical difference, but it is philosophically important. The amount of personal freedom both licenses give is technically quite similar.
MIT doesn’t give anyone the ability to restrict the freedom of others. When you fork a project and use a difference licence for it, the original project remains under MIT.
I really, really want a graphical emacs. By that I mean, I want an emacs with graphics, not an emacs in windows. I want to easily be able to draw stuff.
I ran into this the other day, I like to dabble in emacs, and I had a list of results I wanted to make a quick chart. I ended up dumping it out in a simple CSV, and copy/pasting that into a spreadsheet, and hitting "chart".
Would have been nice to go (line-chart my-list) and have a window pop up with reasonable defaults. And be able to print it to a PDF.
emacs has some SVG support, but I guess its maintainer whim whether you get it or not, I wasn't able to easily get it working on my Mac. That could be a start. But something "nicer" would be, you know, "nice".