Re: Compiled files without sources????

[Tim Cross]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <address@hidden> wrote:
> Lars Ingebrigtsen writes:
>
>  > It was a minor boo-boo, and it's been fixed,
>
> It wasn't a "boo-boo", it was a deliberate omission for the
> convenience of the Emacs and CEDET developers who considered
> integration of CEDET functionality more important than the principle
> of software freedom.  The fact that you consider it a "minor boo-boo"
> suggests that the underlying problem is nowhere near to being fixed.
>

I think this is a completely unjustified statement. There has been
nothing in this thread that suggests these files were not included
simply for the convenience of developers or because functionality was
prioritized over licensing. The fact the files were able to be added
without any significant problems of integration does not support your
argument as including or not including has little convenience value.
The decision to not include them may have been deliberate, but there
is simply insufficient information to judge the reasons why they were
omitted. Licensing and legal matters are complex, often surprising and
frequently open to multiple interpretations. I think it is far more
likely the error was due to an honest error in
understanding/interpretation of the licensing requirements rather than
the somewhat malicious and deliberate interpretation you have
suggested.

Tim