Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[David Kastrup]

Kai Grossjohann <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > What I was originally asking was why tramp is not a GNU project,
> > which is surprising when you see it also as a part of Emacs and (c)
> > FSF.
> 
> As far as I can remember, I kind of felt that Emacs being a GNU
> project doesn't automatically mean that parts of Emacs are also GNU
> projects.

That does not make sense.  The only thing you could say that a project
that (among other goals) provides an integral part of Emacs as one of
its aims need not in itself be a GNU project.

For example, GhostScript development is, in its totality, certainly
not a GNU project, even though it also provides GNU GhostScript.

And there are licensing and other reasons and non-GNU development why
this is so.

I don't see such reasons for Tramp, so it just seemed a bit
misleading to me.

> But maybe that is the case.
> 
> I certainly don't have anything against Tramp being a GNU project!
> Quite on the contrary.
> 
> It seems that people are urging Tramp to become a GNU project.

Don't confuse me with "people".  I don't think I have seen anybody
else bother or even notice much.

> How to go about effecting this?

It is, among other things, a political thing.  Some people tend to
dislike bothering about such stuff.

I recommend that you read
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_toc.html>.  That will tell you
all about what this would imply.

If you need hosting (I don't know what parts of Tramp might be
maintained elsewhere), you can ask for it at
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/devel.html>.

Basically, the end decision rests with RMS.  But for an
FSF-copyrighted package distributed as part of Emacs I don't see much
of a problem, really.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum