Re: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey

[Jean Louis]

* Marcel Ventosa <mve1@runbox.com> [2020-10-16 16:45]:
> I've noticed a trend of speaking about Emacs and other free software
> projects as if they were "commodities" and "products," but as I see
> them, it is precisely because they are community driven projects that
> they are not "commodities" or "products".

My opinion is that Emacs is a product, and it is software commodity as
well. Definitions from Wordnet here below like 1. maybe 2, and 5 do
apply, it is product in few definitions. It has been sold for money in
past through GNU project, which is totally alright, and is probably
sold even today, I just don't know where.

If product is community driven, it still remains product. There is
nothing wrong with that word or calling it a product, because it is,
major and significant free software product made by Emacs developers.

* Overview of noun product

The noun product has 6 senses (first 4 from tagged texts)
1. (52) merchandise, ware, product -- (commodities offered for sale; "good 
business depends on having good merchandise"; "that store offers a variety of 
products")
2. (25) product, production -- (an artifact that has been created by someone or 
some process; "they improve their product every year"; "they export most of 
their agricultural production")
3. (8) product, mathematical product -- (a quantity obtained by multiplication; 
"the product of 2 and 3 is 6")
4. (2) product -- (a chemical substance formed as a result of a chemical 
reaction; "a product of lime and nitric acid")
5. product -- (a consequence of someone's efforts or of a particular set of 
circumstances; "skill is the product of hours of practice"; "his reaction was 
the product of hunger and fatigue")
6. intersection, product, Cartesian product -- (the set of elements common to 
two or more sets; "the set of red hats is the intersection of the set of hats 
and the set of red things")

> > I think it's both insulting to its developers, and stinks of thought 
> > police. Far from the idea of user freedom I hope to expect from
> > GNU and FSF.

It is not important if somebody cals it a product, what is important
is if the distributor or seller provides license with it and gives
same rights to its buyers or users.

> I don't understand how refusing to draw attention to a repository that
> recommends proprietary software turns anyone into the "thought
> police".

It is "proprietary thought police" and there is nothing wrong with
it. Even the thought police will not say there is anything wrong with
thought police. :-p

So when we distribute free software, we tend to speak out against
proprietary software being distributed or promoted together with free
software.

In that sense we are policing various free software repositories and
speaking out publicly against, or denouncing, the inclusion, usage,
and dangers of proprietary software.

So, next time somebody thinks of proprietary software, just remember,
we are watching... slap on fingers.

> In fact, one of the most worrying aspects of this survey idea, as I see
> it, is the suggested use of non-free Javascript to implement it.

Idea about Emacs survey is alright, only that awareness of free
software has yet to arrive to those who initiated the survey, as they
proposed using Google Spreadsheet and similar, which would in fact put
Emacs users at direct risk.