[smithzvk]

The other reply says as much, but it bears repeating as what you said is so extremely incorrect. The GPL is and always has been a license that limits the rights of programmers in order to ensure the rights of users.

This is one of those, frankly, pretty rare cases where the users actually feel a limitation of the GPL (mostly because people that use Emacs has a significant overlap with programmers where the line between developer and end user is very blurry).

[belorn]

> the rights of programmers

So adding proprietary license on top of software which one has not authored is a right that belongs to programmers?

[smithzvk]

Yes, because non-copyleft Free licenses precisely grant this right. By contributing to that project (and licensing those changes under that license) you are saying that this is allowed.

[TylerE]

How many non-programmer users do you personally know that are capable of compiling a C program from source?

[djur]

Not many people are capable of fixing their car personally, but they do benefit from not being required to go to Toyota whenever it breaks. Nonfree software is like an appliance which you're legally forbidden from modifying without permission from the original maker.

[hga]

They could always hire other programmers to do that. And there's real value in having that option, or getting software from a community that works like that, most famously the Linux distro scene.

[smithzvk]

Missed your reply.

Actually it is pretty irrelevant how many non-programmers are capable of compiling or meaningfully editing the C program. The point is that a programmer cannot (reasonably) edit to restrict you freedom.

However, after rethinking what I wrote, I should clarify that while the underlying principles are the same regarding what RMS is trying to do here (limit programmers to protect users), the GPL has nothing really to with this particular fiasco.