Re: Comment on Emacs Lisp Introduction

[Fren Zeee]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <address@hidden> wrote:
> Harald Hanche-Olsen writes:
>  > + David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>  >
>  > > Distributing Emacs without corresponding source to the byte code is a
>  > > violation of its license.
>  >
>  > Is it? I thought you only had to offer access to the source code.
>
> Normally you have to offer access to source in the same way as you
> offer access to binaries.  You don't need to bundle them in the same
> medium, but normally they're available more or less side by side.
>
> Under certain circumstances the object code may be conveyed separately
> from the source, but the conditions are pretty onerous (it must be a
> physical product, and it must be accompanied with a paper certificate
> promising that *anybody* with a copy of the object code can get it
> from you); it's unlikely that the OP received his code that way.
>
> I'm less than impressed with the OP's complaints, of course.

I am not complaining. Its just that I dont have it, and need to find
source matching this old executable, which means that it will take
some time to search for the particular freeze or tar file if it is
still on the web.

>
>
>