Re: AW: Fwd: CEDET sync

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Chong Yidong writes:
>  > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>  > > I don't recall ever hearing of someone being asked to sign an
>  > > assignment so that someone's private integration of XEmacs code
>  > > into Emacs could be published.
>  > 
>  > If a contributor has papers, and wants to contribute code to Emacs,
>  > and the code is helpful to the Emacs project (i.e. it has to make
>  > sense in the Emacs code context), then whether or not the code has
>  > also been contributed to XEmacs is irrelevant.  There is no reason
>  > to treat it any more or less favorably than any other contribution.
>
> You're sidestepping the question.  The conditions you present are
> those that I refer to as "(first) allegiance to Emacs".

Your use of inflammatory language is likely doing more for your mood
than for your argument.

> I know that David Kastrup has cried many tears over acquiring papers
> for AUCTeX, so that's one example of effort (but it's not yet
> integrated).

Because there have been too few tears.  We enforce assignment papers for
any new contributions, and we have assignments from the principal
authors (and previous maintainers) and those whose names actually
appeared in copyright notices, but I certainly have been dragging my
feet with regard to rounding up all previous contributors.  I've been
asking on the list for help with this task, but it is extensive and not
particularly gratifying work.  As you should be well aware of.  It is
not to my credit that I have not yet completed it.

I don't see how my failure to meet the necessary conditions for AUCTeX
inclusion should imply that the necessary conditions are not necessary.
There are valid and legal reasons discussed with the legal counsel of
the FSF for requiring copyright assignments for core GNU components such
as Emacs.  There is nothing arbitrary involved as you try to insinuate
with your verbiage of "pledging allegiance".  Yes, a line is drawn, and
it is drawn further on the side of legal defensibility than you can be
bothered to care for.  But the position of the line, contrary to what
you want to suggest, is determined by legal considerations, not moral
ones.  The morals are why we bother to be here in the first place.

-- 
David Kastrup