emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AW: Fwd: CEDET sync


From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: AW: Fwd: CEDET sync
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:51:09 +0900

David Kastrup writes:

 > > 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.

What's inflammatory about the well-known fact that Emacs developers
are very proud of their program and of free software, and are willing
to jump through hoops that very few projects require to contribute to
it?

 > > 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).
 > 
 > 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.

Been there, done that, use the T-shirt to mop up kitchen spills, yes.

Success is very gratifying, though.

 > It is not to my credit that I have not yet completed it.

Nor is it to your *dis*credit that you haven't, necessarily; that's
for you to judge, not anyone else.

 > 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.

I'm not talking about removing that requirement; I'm talking about
putting more effort into getting assignments, and other strategies
(incorporating an FFI, or a full package system) that might bring
Emacs closer to the rest of the community.  Refusing to add FFI or a
full package system are not legally required to protect Emacs as
distributed by GNU; they are strategies intended to raise annoying
technical obstacles to doing what is already either clearly legal (for
individual users) or illegal (for distributors).

 > There is nothing arbitrary involved as you try to insinuate
 > with your verbiage of "pledging allegiance".

Indeed, loyalty is an arbitrary criterion.  But what bothers you so
much about loyalty?  Is it somehow opposed to software freedom?




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]