Re: elisp's cl package. Don't understand the notice about eval-when-compile

[Xah Lee]

Dear B T Raven,

non-free, is misleading term for proprietary software. People started
to refer to proprietary as non-free, because Richard Stallman abuses
the words “free” and “freedom”, and as a consequence, people started
to call other software that are not compatible with his ideal, as “non-
free”.

Despite the fact that the word “free” does not refer to price, but
proprietary software isn't necessarily restraining freedom. In fact,
the issue of whether source code is proprietary or non-public has
little to do with the concept of liberty. Richard Stallman's vision of
software is “free”, in the sense that coder community can freely look
at the source code and make use of it. That sense of “free” is a point
of view. As a contrast, proprietary software is also free, in the
sense that entrepreneurs and businesses can freely develop and sell
their software without worrying about some coder making copies with
minor or no changes put it out free of charge that robs their work.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

On Mar 30, 1:03 pm, "B. T. Raven" <ni...@nihilo.net> wrote:
> XahLeewrote:
> > dear Eli Zaretskii idiot,
>
> It will be infra dig for Eli to respond, so ....
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 11:20 am, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >>> From:XahLee<xah...@gmail.com>
> >>> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
> >>> I just want to note here that wild non-fact and philosophical elements
> >>> are starting to flying in.
> >>> Richard Stallman, his use of “free” in his concept of Free Software
> >>> and Free Software Foundation, is a abuse of English. I do not know he
> >>> did this with the intent to ride the ambiguity for the marketing
> >>> benefit of the catcher word “free”, or innocently due to the fuzziness
> >>> of English. In any case, from the numerous talks and lectures he gave,
> >>> it is apparent he is abusing the concept of freedom to gain
> >>> supporters.
>
> Are the authors of the American State papers fuzzy on the notion of
> freedom too?
>
> You write: "the intent to ride the ambiguity for the marketing..." What
> marketing?
>
> >>> Please do not use the word “free” like he want you to. When referring
> >>> to his philosophical stance of software and his foundation, please say
> >>> perhaps put a quote such as: “Free Software” and “Free Software
> >>> Foundation”, or FSF Software.
> >>> Don't say “non-free” to refer to commercial software that are disliked
> >>> by FSF. Simply just say software, or commercial software if so, or non-
> >>> FSF ideal software.
>
> I don't think RMS would have problem with calling it "commercial"
> (that's accurate); he is just interested in calling attention to another
> dimension of the phenomenon.
>
> >> Don't listen to this ignorant hogwash.  FSF does not dislike
> >> commercial software (in fact, FSF sells GNU software and books about
> >> GNU software itself).  FSF dislikes _proprietary_ software, which is
> >> entirely different.
>
> Thanks for reminding me Eli. I think I'll order a book now.
>
>
>
> > commercial software, in this context, refers to proprietary software.
> > If you have read the article, you should know.
>
> > it is not wrong, to pointing out my sloppiness in terminology.
> > However, you had to add sweeping remarks with insult.
>
> Eli is condemning the sin and not the sinner. In other words it wasn't
> ad personam but ad rem.
>
>
>
> > perhaps you wonder why i called you a idiot.
>
> That's ad personam.
>
> For the reason, please > see:
>
>
>
>
>
> > • (Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness
> >  http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
>
> > excerpt follows:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > (Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness
>
> >XahLee, 2008-07
>
> > The respect in my response to people's writings is based on this
> > ratio: (knowledge+love)/disrespectfulness exhibited in their posts.
> > For example, if disrespectfulness is constant, then the greater their
> > knowledge and love, the greater will be my respect for them. Suppose
> > the knowledge+love is constant, then the greater their outward
> > disrespect, will gain greater of my disrepsect. If their knowledge
> > +love is greater than their outward disrespect, then overall they
> > still gain my respect. However, if their knowledge+love is less than
> > their show of disrespectfulness, then i dispise them.
>
> This is a silly mathematization of matters far too involved to be
> modeled in this way.
>
>
>
> > We all have different levels of IQs, environment we grew up, areas of
> > expertise, weaknesses. No human animal, knows all (in fact in modern
> > word hardly any human animal knew 1/10^googolplex percent of
> > knowledge).
>
> This is an exaggeration since certainly all men (corporately) know ALL
> of [human] knowledge and there are far fewer than 10^(10 ^ 100) humans.
> Why didn't you use a power series of googleplex googleplex levels high?
> Or Graham's number?
>
> This is when discussion, comes in. When you know
>
> > something, and you sincerely believe you know it, don't be shy. When
> > you don't know something, don't be a ass. The problem with most
> > sophomorons, is not knowing the extent of their ignorance. Coupled
> > with the male nature, they become aggressive in pissing fights.
>
> > When i encounter tech geekers, usually they don't know shit of the
> > subject relative to me, yet they are outright insulting to point of
> > views outside their community (may it be unix ways; perl, lisp...). If
> > you don't take the extra mile to kiss their ass when presenting
> > unorthodox views, they either call you stupid outright, or become
> > aggressive and hateful, to the point to kick/ban you or whatnot (e.g.
> > eliminating any possible discussion or explanation i could contribute
> > or defend of their accusations). That is when, you begin to see
> > fuckheads and motherfucks sprinkled in my writings.
>
> This is a good example why you shouldn't respond in anger (or when
> tonguing your meds).
>
>
>
> > ...
>
> > 2008-08-24 Addendum
>
> [addendum snipped. Vide supra]
>
> By the way, I agree that Sowell's book is top-notch but his views should
> be tempered by reading something by Naomi Klein. Remember Economics is
> not all. There is also Political Economy.