7 ms·

You should have linked the first post in that thread. It explains what the whole thing is actually about: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-0

by copx 13y ago

You should have linked the first post in that thread. It explains what the whole thing is actually about: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00238.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00... Tl;dr: Mercurial is a free software project sharing GNU's goals, while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software and has an incompatible license.

belorn 13y ago
I find git's GPLv2-only license to be a disadvantage when contrasted with hg's GPLv2-or-later. For example, this makes it more awkward to combine git with AGPL code, which is something that we reasonably might want to do for web front-ends. GPLv3 and AGPL have mutual cross-compatibility clauses with each other, but AIUI, GPLv2-only and AGPL don't. Incompatible in this context mean that "GPLv2 only" is causing more license incompatibilities than gplv2+.
rout39574 13y ago
Not even RMS holds that position. You should read the thread.
Codhisattva 13y ago
Your Tl;dr: is wrong.
- ehartsuyker 13y ago
  For those of us less aware, could your or copx link to an explanation or why the tl;dr is or isn't wrong, or give us a quick one?
  - uid 13y ago
    Petty factionalism within Open Source where if you don't support the latest views of the GNU committee and Dear Leader then you are against open source (which is ridiculous). Largest dispute has been a lot of GPL projects that won't move to v3 since there are a lot of problems with it. Not even worth replying to, in my opinion.
    - chimeracoder 13y ago
      > Not even worth replying to, in my opinion. I agree with this, so I hesitated to reply... BUT I feel it's important to point out one thing. You're using the term "Open Source" (capitalized, even), which is a related ideology, but still distinct. It's jarring to read: > If you don't support the latest views of the GNU committee and Dear Leader then you are against open source when the FSF discourages use of the term "open source"[0]! That said, you're right that this is all pretty silly factionalism. People love to focus on less important differences[1], while ignoring the more important larger picture. Even the FSF doesn't consider "open source" (or the GPLv2) to be bad; they consider themselves both fighting for the same result, just with different motivations. As far as they are concerned, the GPLv2 is fine; the GPLv3 just happens to be a bit better. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm... (Don't be fooled by the title - the FSF views "Open Source" as an ally, not a rival). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...
Karunamon 13y ago
>while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software and has an incompatible license. WTF? Git is GPLv2 - the exact same as the Linux kernel. A great many developers are avoiding v3 due to the changes it made. And "anti-GNU people" is just a lame insult.
- azernik 13y ago
  Aaah, so I see you have not yet encountered the ideological spit between the "open source" and "free software" movements. The difference may be nigh-indistinguishable, but the participants get very worked up about it. More so on the FSF side, but people like esr also get quite worked up on the OSI side.
- copx 13y ago
  The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. The GPL3 expresses the same philosophy as the GPL2. GNU released a new version only because companies discovered a loophole (a bug if you will) in the GPL which allowed them to build non-free (as in GNU) systems based on GPL software. GNU was founded to fight such systems. However, Linus Torvalds (Linux and git) has no problems with non-free at all and in fact wanted to support the production of such systems. Like many users of the GPL2 he never actually shared the goals of GNU. Git's license was deliberately chosen to support the building of non-free systems. According to GNU ideology that is evil. If you are a GNU contributor you are not supposed to even link to non-free solutions. So yeah, of course the hardcore GNU ideologues do not like git or the people behind it.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. Not necessarily true... it might simply be that they feel the goals of GNU are better pushed for via means other than GPLv3. E.g. read a statement by Linux kernel devs regarding the second draft of GPLv3: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217 http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217 Has nothing to do with not supporting the goals of GNU, and more to do with not introducing end use restrictions (which is a significant restraint on software freedom), the risk of balkanizing the FLOSS community (which has actually come true to some extent), etc.
frik 13y ago
Summary of main arguments: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso: [...] main argument in favour of hg is not technical, but rather social. For GNU, I think it is far more important to support a project that aligns with GNU's aims [...] GPL2+ Reply by Eric S. Raymond: +1. And I say that as someone who *likes* hg and wishes it had won. Repeating the bzr mistake would be stupid, stupid, *stupid*. Edit: Raymond replied to Kastrup who replied to Hermoso. The discussion evolved in the meantime, so it's probably better to read the thread yourself: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00238.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00...
- umanwizard 13y ago
  Off-topic, but that's not how Spanish and Latin American names work. His "primary" last name is Gutiérrez, not Hermoso.
- _delirium 13y ago
  That's not an accurate summary of the main arguments. For one thing, on the pro-hg side you've quoted only the opinion of someone (Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso) who isn't even an emacs dev: the email starts with a note to please cc him on replies because he isn't subscribed to the list! This isn't the view of the GNU project, the opinion of the Emacs developers on why they prefer hg over git, or even the personal view of RMS. You'll get a better summary if you read the thread.
  - asveikau 13y ago
    I don't know why people quote ESR like that's still a thing either. He wrote some essays in the 90s, wrote some possibly important code before that time, but one must understand his position on this list is basically troll.
- gcv 13y ago
  You completely misquoted the replies. ESR was NOT replying to the OP, he was agreeing with a rebuttal of the OP's argument.
gcv 13y ago
A slight exaggeration, but yes, that's quite close to the OP's argument (Git is GPLv2 and will not change; Hg is GPLv2+ and therefore closer in spirit to GNU's goals and a GNU project like Emacs should favor GPLv3 and AGPL tools). Luckily, that particular argument is thoroughly rebutted downthread. Choice quote: "Emacs shot itself in this foot already" by choosing Bzr, GNU's blessed VCS, for such political reasons. (Worth noting: RMS raised no strong objections to Git.) Also, the OP is called out for not understanding the driving reasons for moving Emacs to Git. Edit: Corrected reference to Hg's license; it's GPLv2+, not GPLv3.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Hg is GPLv2 or later, which (importantly) permits incorporation of Hg code in GPLv3 and AGPL codebases, but is not quite the same as it being GPLv3.
  - gcv 13y ago
    I stand corrected and edited my comment accordingly. Thanks!
wes-exp 13y ago
Quite frankly, not sharing GNU's goals is a feature, not a bug. The less the source code is encumbered by onerous political restrictions, the better.
- djur 13y ago
  I don't think that you'll find a lot of contributors to GNU Emacs who agree with that stance.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Quite frankly, not sharing GNU's goals is a bug, not a feature. The less the source code is encumbered by onerous political restrictions, the better.
  - wes-exp 13y ago
    I can see that the freedom to copy must be very important to you. ba-dum ching
- Karellen 13y ago
  Onerous political restrictions, like, giving downstream users the same freedoms you got from the upstream author; the freedoms that the author wanted all users of their code to have?

by copx 13y ago

belorn 13y ago

I find git's GPLv2-only license to be a disadvantage when contrasted with hg's GPLv2-or-later. For example, this makes it more awkward to combine git with AGPL code, which is something that we reasonably might want to do for web front-ends. GPLv3 and AGPL have mutual cross-compatibility clauses with each other, but AIUI, GPLv2-only and AGPL don't. Incompatible in this context mean that "GPLv2 only" is causing more license incompatibilities than gplv2+.

rout39574 13y ago

Not even RMS holds that position. You should read the thread.

Codhisattva 13y ago

Your Tl;dr: is wrong.

ehartsuyker 13y ago
For those of us less aware, could your or copx link to an explanation or why the tl;dr is or isn't wrong, or give us a quick one?
- uid 13y ago
  Petty factionalism within Open Source where if you don't support the latest views of the GNU committee and Dear Leader then you are against open source (which is ridiculous). Largest dispute has been a lot of GPL projects that won't move to v3 since there are a lot of problems with it. Not even worth replying to, in my opinion.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > Not even worth replying to, in my opinion. I agree with this, so I hesitated to reply... BUT I feel it's important to point out one thing. You're using the term "Open Source" (capitalized, even), which is a related ideology, but still distinct. It's jarring to read: > If you don't support the latest views of the GNU committee and Dear Leader then you are against open source when the FSF discourages use of the term "open source"[0]! That said, you're right that this is all pretty silly factionalism. People love to focus on less important differences[1], while ignoring the more important larger picture. Even the FSF doesn't consider "open source" (or the GPLv2) to be bad; they consider themselves both fighting for the same result, just with different motivations. As far as they are concerned, the GPLv2 is fine; the GPLv3 just happens to be a bit better. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm... (Don't be fooled by the title - the FSF views "Open Source" as an ally, not a rival). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...

Karunamon 13y ago

>while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software and has an incompatible license. WTF? Git is GPLv2 - the exact same as the Linux kernel. A great many developers are avoiding v3 due to the changes it made. And "anti-GNU people" is just a lame insult.

azernik 13y ago
Aaah, so I see you have not yet encountered the ideological spit between the "open source" and "free software" movements. The difference may be nigh-indistinguishable, but the participants get very worked up about it. More so on the FSF side, but people like esr also get quite worked up on the OSI side.
copx 13y ago
The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. The GPL3 expresses the same philosophy as the GPL2. GNU released a new version only because companies discovered a loophole (a bug if you will) in the GPL which allowed them to build non-free (as in GNU) systems based on GPL software. GNU was founded to fight such systems. However, Linus Torvalds (Linux and git) has no problems with non-free at all and in fact wanted to support the production of such systems. Like many users of the GPL2 he never actually shared the goals of GNU. Git's license was deliberately chosen to support the building of non-free systems. According to GNU ideology that is evil. If you are a GNU contributor you are not supposed to even link to non-free solutions. So yeah, of course the hardcore GNU ideologues do not like git or the people behind it.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. Not necessarily true... it might simply be that they feel the goals of GNU are better pushed for via means other than GPLv3. E.g. read a statement by Linux kernel devs regarding the second draft of GPLv3: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217 http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217 Has nothing to do with not supporting the goals of GNU, and more to do with not introducing end use restrictions (which is a significant restraint on software freedom), the risk of balkanizing the FLOSS community (which has actually come true to some extent), etc.

frik 13y ago

Summary of main arguments: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso: [...] main argument in favour of hg is not technical, but rather social. For GNU, I think it is far more important to support a project that aligns with GNU's aims [...] GPL2+ Reply by Eric S. Raymond: +1. And I say that as someone who *likes* hg and wishes it had won. Repeating the bzr mistake would be stupid, stupid, *stupid*. Edit: Raymond replied to Kastrup who replied to Hermoso. The discussion evolved in the meantime, so it's probably better to read the thread yourself: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00238.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00...

umanwizard 13y ago
Off-topic, but that's not how Spanish and Latin American names work. His "primary" last name is Gutiérrez, not Hermoso.
_delirium 13y ago
That's not an accurate summary of the main arguments. For one thing, on the pro-hg side you've quoted only the opinion of someone (Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso) who isn't even an emacs dev: the email starts with a note to please cc him on replies because he isn't subscribed to the list! This isn't the view of the GNU project, the opinion of the Emacs developers on why they prefer hg over git, or even the personal view of RMS. You'll get a better summary if you read the thread.
- asveikau 13y ago
  I don't know why people quote ESR like that's still a thing either. He wrote some essays in the 90s, wrote some possibly important code before that time, but one must understand his position on this list is basically troll.
gcv 13y ago
You completely misquoted the replies. ESR was NOT replying to the OP, he was agreeing with a rebuttal of the OP's argument.

gcv 13y ago

A slight exaggeration, but yes, that's quite close to the OP's argument (Git is GPLv2 and will not change; Hg is GPLv2+ and therefore closer in spirit to GNU's goals and a GNU project like Emacs should favor GPLv3 and AGPL tools). Luckily, that particular argument is thoroughly rebutted downthread. Choice quote: "Emacs shot itself in this foot already" by choosing Bzr, GNU's blessed VCS, for such political reasons. (Worth noting: RMS raised no strong objections to Git.) Also, the OP is called out for not understanding the driving reasons for moving Emacs to Git. Edit: Corrected reference to Hg's license; it's GPLv2+, not GPLv3.

dllthomas 13y ago
Hg is GPLv2 or later, which (importantly) permits incorporation of Hg code in GPLv3 and AGPL codebases, but is not quite the same as it being GPLv3.
- gcv 13y ago
  I stand corrected and edited my comment accordingly. Thanks!

wes-exp 13y ago

Quite frankly, not sharing GNU's goals is a feature, not a bug. The less the source code is encumbered by onerous political restrictions, the better.

djur 13y ago
I don't think that you'll find a lot of contributors to GNU Emacs who agree with that stance.
_delirium 13y ago
Quite frankly, not sharing GNU's goals is a bug, not a feature. The less the source code is encumbered by onerous political restrictions, the better.
- wes-exp 13y ago
  I can see that the freedom to copy must be very important to you. ba-dum ching
Karellen 13y ago
Onerous political restrictions, like, giving downstream users the same freedoms you got from the upstream author; the freedoms that the author wanted all users of their code to have?