Toward a "modern" Emacs [LWN.net]

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 25, 2020 17:55 UTC (Fri) by smoogen (subscriber, #97)
Parent article: Toward a "modern" Emacs

I think the final paragraph is the crux of the matter and the rest of the discussion which has been going on for years is the side talk.

```
This points to one idea that did not really come up in the discussion, but which should be considered: part of the key to making Emacs more attractive to users might be making its development community more attractive to contributors. Adopting some of the more forge-oriented tools favored by younger developers might help in this regard, as might a less centralized governance model. Emacs remains an old-style GNU project, a fact which clearly grates on its developers at times. Increasing the relevance of Emacs in the coming years is going to require more than new key bindings and some cat videos; it is likely to require attention to improving the experience at all levels.
```

In the end, making emacs into looking like all the current code editors like VScode and such does not fix the core problem: to have an editor for developers, you have to have the environment developers want to work in. Frankly I don't see that changing because a lot of people are happy with what they have. The only way I see it changing is people doing the hard work of making a new community that does those things, gets changes done and sees if new people are interested in having a completely programmable editor written in what is now an esoteric language.

[Says the person who has been using emacs since 1987 ... but finds no interest in training new people in it anymore.]

to post comments

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 1:31 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (51 responses)

> I think the final paragraph is the crux of the matter and the rest of the discussion which has been going on for years is the side talk. [...] sees if new people are interested in having a completely programmable editor written in what is now an esoteric language.

Spot on, thank you. A "noob-friendly" mode wouldn't hurt (as long as long time users can disable it) but you really don't need a very large user base for a project like this to strive. It's much more important to make super easy to contribute for the _users you already have_. I've been using Emacs for a couple decades and I found the process to submit a one-line patch ridiculously outdated, see my other comment below.

With delusional friends like these, Emacs needs no enemy:

> "It is unfortunate that the people who implemented the newer editors chose incompatibility with Emacs."

I think I read once one of the designers of the GPL stating that copyleft, copyright assignment and other restrictions wouldn't be needed in a perfect world with BSD licenses everywhere. Something like that.

The world has completely changed since the copyleft was invented. It's not "perfect" because closed source still exists (always will) but open source is absolutely "everywhere you look" and a massive lot is NOT copyleft. The FSF people have won but they haven't noticed because of their idealism/dogma. So we're now in this crazy situation where it takes more effort to make open-source contribution to FSF projects because of paperwork and refusal to use any tool that is not Kosher.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 1:46 UTC (Sat) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (17 responses)

> It's not "perfect" because closed source still exists (always will) but open source is absolutely "everywhere you look" and a massive lot is NOT copyleft. The FSF people have won but they haven't noticed because of their idealism/dogma.

The "FSF people" may have managed to change the world, but they have not "won" -- "Open Source" is not "Free Software".

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 2:17 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> > and a massive lot is NOT copyleft.

> The "FSF people" may have managed to change the world, but they have not "won" -- "Open Source" is not "Free Software".

I meant: a massive lot is not copyleft and either BSD, MIT, Apache, etc. which are all Free Software. "More free" than GPL actually because you're not forced to do good things; you're also allowed to do "bad" things.

Also, they did not "won" also because open source was inevitable anyway; at best they accelerated it. With "they won" I was just trying to be stylish I think you got my point.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 4:03 UTC (Sat) by rsidd (guest, #2582) [Link] (15 responses)

Erm, open source *is* free software. Almost every OSI-approved licence is a FSF-approved licence and vice versa. The very few exceptions are arcane and unimportant.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 6:08 UTC (Sat) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link] (14 responses)

There's a lot of open source that is not free software, see the practical differences section of https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-poi....

Also, the real world definition is that almost all OSes that run on hardware and call themselves "open source" include nonfree code. OSes that call themselves free software are much more likely to mean all the code is free software. The free software definition explicitly addresses which code to consider, and its put in practice in https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html, https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria, and https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html.

An exception to this rule is 8 bit arduino's which are often called open source and are fully free software (but the arduino development environment includes optional nonfree code).

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 12:17 UTC (Sat) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (13 responses)

In practice, it's "open source" for the vendor/developer, but "closed source" for the downstream end-user, because the former isn't required to pass along the same rights (ie the source code) to the latter.

In the real world, I've been forced to use a lot of proprietary software that is built on top of "open source" codebases. This includes multiple android devices and several variations of LLVM. After all, _I_ don't have the source code to what is actually running.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 26, 2020 18:36 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (12 responses)

Thanks, I think this Nth million discussion about what "free software" means made me finally realize how poorly named hence poorly advertised it is. This is not just the confusion with "gratis" which does not help but is really not the main issue.

Of course I'm a bit slow: if something needs to be rephrased and discussed a million times then it's likely not just because everyone's stupid. Discussions that tend to get heated are also much more often triggered by misunderstandings than disagreements. Finally, who expects good names from software engineers? :-)

So the key concept/idea behind "free software" or more specifically "copyleft software" is transitivity: making sure not just the users but also _the users of the users_ are free to do what they want. This of course implies the first users are _less_ free to do what they want which means "free" is self-contradicting. Boom.

Even before someone wrote that "my freedom stops where yours begin" we knew freedom was a messy concept best avoided when possible. For some fun search for "weaponized first amendment".

This also seems like a classic case of trying to avoid a technical and unusual but very smart and extremely accurate term "copyleft" for the fear of confusing readers, dumbing it down and confusing everyone much more. And then not wondering what went wrong.

I will stop referring to GPL software as "free software" from now on, it will help save a fair amount of digital ink. "Copyleft software" it is.

PS: not sure yet how to best name BSD-like licenses. "permissive" is very vague.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 26, 2020 18:39 UTC (Sat) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (2 responses)

Permissive is the best word I can think of to describe it.

(The other way I can think of is to describe the GPL as "socialist", the BSD and MIT licences as "liberal", and proprietary licences as "reactionary", but that doesn't work very well.)

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 8:35 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Developer-Free, and User-Free?

GPL frees the *user*, BSD frees the *developer*.

Cheers,
Wol

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 16:50 UTC (Sun) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link]

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html uses "last pushover licenses". Aka pushover license.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 26, 2020 20:09 UTC (Sat) by smcv (subscriber, #53363) [Link]

"Permissive" is a term I've seen used frequently in e.g. Debian to refer to non-copyleft licenses (BSD, MIT/X11, Zlib, CC-BY, Unlicense, WTFPL and many similar licenses) as a group. Sometimes people draw a spectrum from strong copyleft (e.g. GPL) to permissive, with weak copyleft licenses like the LGPL in the middle as a compromise between the two.

Using "free software" to refer only to copyleft licenses and "open source" to refer to permissive licenses seems really confusing, since it's in conflict with the way the originators of those terms use them: the FSF considers both copyleft and permissive licenses to be free software, and the OSI considers both copyleft and permissive licences to be open source.

The free software movement and the open source movement (inasmuch as either of those is monolithic) have different goals and different focuses, and perhaps free software is more closely aligned with copyleft while open source is more closely aligned with permissive licensing, but I think a lot of people who consider themselves to be part of one community and not the other would agree that both styles of licensing have their place (although probably not on the specifics of which one is more suitable for a particular project).

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 7:46 UTC (Sun) by rsidd (guest, #2582) [Link] (6 responses)

Apart from what you say, the FSF lists BSD/MIT/similar licences as free software. Copyleft has no role in RMS's or the FSF's definition of free software.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 17:05 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (5 responses)

> Copyleft has no role in RMS's or the FSF's definition of free software.

... which is amazing considering he literally invented the entire "less-free-for-developers and more-free-for-users" software category, and probably the super smart "copyleft" word for it too. How come _he_ did not drop the super confusing "free" terminology? All his followers would have... followed, as they do when they use "free software" now, which helps feeding the never ending stream of debates where the basics seem to be re-explained over and over again.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 17:15 UTC (Sun) by rsidd (guest, #2582) [Link] (4 responses)

RMS's definition of "free software" is clear enough, and non-copyleft licences like BSD/MIT/Apache entirely qualify.

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

Various comments on copyleft and non-copyleft licences are here. Note that objections to individual non-copyleft licences are not for their permissiveness but to unclear names (what does "BSD licence" or "MIT licence" mean?) or GPL incompatibility (eg the BSD licence with advertising clause; CDDL; APSL). The Apache 2.0 licence is strongly recommended as a permissive free software licence.

In short, this entire thread is a red herring, based on a misunderstanding of "free software".

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 17:26 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> In short, this entire thread is a red herring, based on a misunderstanding of "free software".

Misunderstanding as in the gazillions other threads before it and in all the future ones too. I'm impressed by how quickly you found and posted the references, you must be really used to that :-)

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 28, 2020 2:38 UTC (Mon) by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492) [Link]

> community

The problems is that RMS defines community as a) "the keybindings I personally enjoyed in 1975 long before industry and sanity discarded the concept of 'cording keyboard' " b) a particular non-technical and highly idealistic political philosophic and c) if yoiur a women, falling over yourself to get to me.

Which is, I grant, a *particular* community, but not one that is welcoming to pretty much anyone who has first used a computer since either the IBM PC or Apple MAC was introduced.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 29, 2020 10:19 UTC (Tue) by smcv (subscriber, #53363) [Link] (1 responses)

With hindsight, it's unfortunate that the originators of the free software term didn't talk about "software freedom" rather than "free software", which would have meant the same thing while avoiding the whole free beer/free speech ambiguity.

Regarding the difference between free software and copyleft: free software (or software freedom if you prefer) is a goal, but copyleft is one of several possible strategies for achieving that goal (permissive licensing is another). Copyleft is closely associated with the term "free software" because the FSF has chosen to use copyleft as their main strategy, but it isn't actually their objective.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Oct 5, 2020 21:05 UTC (Mon) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> With hindsight, it's unfortunate that the originators of the free software term didn't talk about "software freedom" rather than "free software", which would have meant the same thing while avoiding the whole free beer/free speech ambiguity.

... and also avoided any copyleft/permissive ambiguity - thanks!

BTW "Software Freedom Conservancy" is an exceptionally clear name.

While their top goal seems to be copyleft enforcement, funny enough they don't seem to request copyright assignment before sending a patch. Their website also seems less focused on philosophy and more on getting copyleft things done but maybe that's just my impression.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Oct 1, 2020 19:36 UTC (Thu) by ecree (guest, #95790) [Link]

> not sure yet how to best name BSD-like licenses.

I believe the canonical term is 'copycenter'. See http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/C/copycenter.html

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 3:24 UTC (Sat) by cmonsanto (subscriber, #96651) [Link] (4 responses)

> With delusional friends like these, Emacs needs no enemy:

> > "It is unfortunate that the people who implemented the newer editors chose incompatibility with Emacs."

Same mindset that kept Emacs on Bazaar well after the wider community standardized on Git.

> So we're now in this crazy situation where it takes more effort to make open-source contribution to FSF projects because of paperwork and refusal to use any tool that is not Kosher.

What bothers me the most about this situation is that there's nothing to even protect. Can you imagine a contentious lawsuit over Emacs source? What, is a router going to hide a modified elisp interpreter a-la busybox?

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 4:21 UTC (Sat) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link] (3 responses)

Microsoft and apple have both made moves to make their app stores on the desktop be like the iphone and restrict applications beyond what gplv3 allows. They have enough legal resources to avoid violating in the first place. The fact that there are popular gplv3 desktop applications like emacs and gimp and others, along with FSF having the resources do the legal work to ensure compliance, I'd bet has and will be a deterrent from microsoft and apple restricting freedoms on those oses.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 5:03 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (2 responses)

The underestimated power of emacs and gimp stopping Microsoft from locking down Windows 10S, wow! What next, newer editors deliberately choosing copy/paste shortcuts different from Emacs?

More seriously: many companies do try to avoid the GPL as much as they can and the GPLv3 even more. However there's zero evidence that they care about who holds the copyright. Imagine a legal department having the time and resource to "profile" open source copyright authors...

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 6:35 UTC (Sat) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link] (1 responses)

> there's zero evidence that they care about who holds the copyright. Imagine a legal department having the time and resource to "profile" open source copyright authors.

There is a long history and plenty of evidence regarding FSF and MS legal department.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 17:01 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

Again, thanks for correcting me... with at least one reference which should be very easy to provide considering "long" and "plenty".

To be clear: did Microsoft struggle with the FSF in the past? I bet. Did Microsoft have rules to deal with open source or the GPL? Yes of course. Still has, just like any other software company. What I assumed and meant is: Microsoft Legal never explicitly instructed its employees to deal with "FSF software" differently from any other GPL software.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 9:35 UTC (Sat) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link] (22 responses)

>With delusional friends like these, Emacs needs no enemy:
>> "It is unfortunate that the people who implemented the newer editors chose incompatibility with Emacs."

Well, yes. Emacs has a problem: It can cater to new users, or it can cater to RMS' personal preferences. Whether explicitly or implicitly, the project is choosing the latter at almost every turn, and thus can not hope to attract many of the former.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 12:38 UTC (Sat) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (8 responses)

> Well, yes. Emacs has a problem: It can cater to new users, or it can cater to RMS' personal preferences.

s/RMS/existing users/

and also, s/RMS/existing developers/

Granted, that doesn't invalidate your point. However, RMS's point is also valid; it's not wise to alienate the current user (and more importantly, developer) base, in favor of mythical hordes of new users (and developers) that experience shows us aren't likely to ever materialize.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 12:46 UTC (Sat) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link] (7 responses)

No, I really think this is about a much narrower set than “existing users”. Of course, it's not RMS and RMS alone, but I do believe too much weight is put on his opinions compared to the larger group of emacs users who don't care about compatibility with their dotfiles from 1980.

Interestingly enough, since keybindings were discussed; vim has an even higher barrier to entry (I mean, if you think C-k for cut and C-y for paste is bad, how about vim's modes?), yet somehow manages to stay somewhat relevant while emacs is dwindling. (E.g. it ties IntelliJ for #4 in StackOverflow's survey over development tools, with five the popularity of emacs.)

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 17:09 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

> (I mean, if you think C-k for cut and C-y for paste is bad, how about vim's modes?),

I suspect there's a sizable "niche" of users who like a modal editor. Because it's a bit of a niche there's less room for competition so vim is able to fill it completely (and to your point: probably because they listen to all their users too). I don't think there is any another modal _and_ popular editor. Because this niche is not so small, it ends up #4 on stackoverflow.

My 2 cents.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 20:30 UTC (Sat) by cpitrat (subscriber, #116459) [Link]

Exactly that. I've been a vim user for the past 20 years but I remember when I switched to Linux and chose between emacs and vim. Emacs seemed just a very complex clone of other editors with different bindings. Vim had a different approach and I could immediately get why it could be considered more attractive.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 20:26 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (4 responses)

Vim works fine because you need just a handful of commands to get by for regular tasks. And Vim is also present pretty much everywhere, so you kinda eventually have to learn it just to be able to work through SSH.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 29, 2020 6:42 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

Where's the damn +1 button?

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Oct 1, 2020 19:41 UTC (Thu) by ecree (guest, #95790) [Link] (2 responses)

> And Vim is also present pretty much everywhere, so you kinda eventually have to learn it just to be able to work through SSH.

Well, you don't *have* to. You could do what I did and learn ed instead, which means you don't have to look at ugly Vim, and as an additional bonus you get to be insufferably smug. (Well, until someone shows up with butterflies.)

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Oct 1, 2020 20:47 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (1 responses)

https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.en.html

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Oct 1, 2020 20:58 UTC (Thu) by ecree (guest, #95790) [Link]

Yes, that's a classic. The only problem is that gnu seem to have misclassified it under 'jokes' :P

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 19:32 UTC (Sat) by mvar (guest, #82051) [Link] (12 responses)

>Well, yes. Emacs has a problem: It can cater to new users, or it can cater to RMS' personal preferences. Whether explicitly or >implicitly, the project is choosing the latter at almost every turn, and thus can not hope to attract many of the former.

i see that response by rms as more tongue in cheek, meaning that everyone claims that emacs has those weird combinations for copy/cut/paste when actually it predates these by many, many years..So why should emacs adapt and change how it works based on some trend that appeared later? rms is stubborn at times, i just don't think this comment of his is indication of arrogance, it's just stating the facts. On the other hand his stance about the "NO WARRANTY" message in the splash screen (last link in the article), ugh... *sigh*

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 26, 2020 20:49 UTC (Sat) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link] (11 responses)

> So why should emacs adapt and change how it works based on some trend that appeared later?

In case it's not obvious: Because the Ctrl-X/C/V bindings are clearly _better_. They can be done with the left hand without moving it while the right hand is using the mouse, which is cumbersome for Ctrl-K/Y.

Of course, due to inertia, not everything is worth changing. And Emacs' problem is not first and foremost about those specific bindings. But it is a symptom.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 27, 2020 2:15 UTC (Sun) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (4 responses)

Yeah, on a QWERTY keyboard (which is the vast majority, I'll grant that). How is it on other layouts used around the world? As a Vim user, I prefer some mnemonics with things which `y` and `p` go with pretty well. What's the original rationale behind ^K and ^Y (IIRC, it is `kill-line`, but that doesn't sound like a copy at all other than that I know Vim does store the last removed text at the "top" of the paste stack).

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 27, 2020 8:16 UTC (Sun) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link] (3 responses)

The most common variants I am aware of are QWERTZ (German), where Y and Z have switched places, and AZERTY (French), where A/Q and W/Z are switched. Both touch on Ctrl-Z (undo), but X/C/V are unchanged. I don't honestly know if any of them typically also switch the hotkey for undo around.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 28, 2020 11:40 UTC (Mon) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link] (2 responses)

Well there's Dvorak keyboards.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 29, 2020 7:32 UTC (Tue) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (1 responses)

As a Dvorak user, I am perfectly happy with cut/copy/paste not being optimized for my keyboard layout.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Oct 1, 2020 3:21 UTC (Thu) by jasone (subscriber, #2423) [Link]

Same here, but Dvorak layout *would* be an ergonomic problem if my typical workflow involved much reaching for the mouse.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 27, 2020 6:10 UTC (Sun) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link] (1 responses)

> And Emacs' problem is not first and foremost about those specific bindings.

Indeed, and it's one that seems to expose a fundamental division in both the FSF and the GNU project generally: the people who would like very much to enable the broader world to have the ability to use free software to do the things that matter to them, and the people who are interested in the Cult of Richard.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 27, 2020 6:40 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

Wait, there are people _not_ part of some cult or another? Neither TV nor Fakebook ever talks about them. This sort of people without loud and simple opinions is too boring to exist anymore.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 29, 2020 14:57 UTC (Tue) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link] (2 responses)

From my memory, didn't the ctrl-x ctrl-v actions enter muscle memory through the wordstar editors which started in 1979? Whereas EMACS initial release was in 1976 (with heritage from TECO)? Not so far apart.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 29, 2020 15:59 UTC (Tue) by jem (subscriber, #24231) [Link] (1 responses)

No, Ctrl-x was down in WordStar. Cursor movement keys were in a diamond pattern: Ctrl-e/s/d/x for up, down, right and down, respectively.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 29, 2020 17:53 UTC (Tue) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link]

Ah thanks! "IIRC" is so often flawed ;-)

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Oct 13, 2020 17:18 UTC (Tue) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link]

> In case it's not obvious: Because the Ctrl-X/C/V bindings are clearly _better_. They can be done with the left hand without moving it while the right hand is using the mouse, which is cumbersome for Ctrl-K/Y.

Or the other way around: It is cumbersome to use the mouse with Emacs key bindings. I assume, that many Emacs users do not use the mouse much. I don't even have one, only a touchpad, centered in front of the space bar.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 28, 2020 11:00 UTC (Mon) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

The semi-recent episode where Emacs users attempted to get LLVM integration upstream as a compromise because GCC is too broken *by design* to interoperate with the IDE was a real eye opener.

It's not about idealism any more, it's blind worship of religious scripture. RMS is high on his own product.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 28, 2020 12:30 UTC (Mon) by MrWim (subscriber, #47432) [Link] (3 responses)

> The world has completely changed since the copyleft was invented. It's not "perfect" because closed source still exists (always will) but open source is absolutely "everywhere you look" and a massive lot is NOT copyleft. The FSF people have won but they haven't noticed because of their idealism/dogma.

I think this misunderstands the aims of the FSF. Really it's not about software, it's about people (aka users). Does the software restrict the user in some way? Free software licences including copyleft or BSD style are a means to that end, rather than an end in itself.

So: if there's more free software out there, but people have less control then overall this is seen as a loss.

I'm not saying that I completely agree with the FSF, but I think their position is consistent with their purpose (or idealism/dogma as you put it).

There was a link posted to LWN a few years ago to this effect. Something about there being more open-source software out there, but even more proprietary software build upon it. It was by some bigshot like Eben Moglen. I'd love to link to it but I can't find it now.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 28, 2020 14:27 UTC (Mon) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link] (1 responses)

Perhaps you are thinking of the FOSDEM talks by Karen Sandler and Bradley Kuhn:

https://archive.fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/full_softw...
https://archive.fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/open_sourc...

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 28, 2020 15:44 UTC (Mon) by MrWim (subscriber, #47432) [Link]

Thank you.

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 29, 2020 7:37 UTC (Tue) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

The thing is, RMS keeps making decisions about FSF software that restrict what users can practically do with his software that do not enable the users. So there's kind of a blindness here, where the ideological freedom and capability of the users is being used to prevent the practical utility and capability of the users.

I think the ideological freedom of the users is important, and that FSF correctly identified this way back when and still have a useful mission to share that seed idea. I just don't think that browbeating users who want to make reasonable changes that do not actually harm those ideological ideas serves that mission.