Re: Compiled files without sources????

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Tim Cross writes:

 > 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.

No malice at all is implied, just a lack of due diligence.  Obviously
there was an error in understanding the implications of the licensing
requirements for what Emacs *should* do (though Emacs is in no way
legally bound, of course).  More important in my opinion is the fact
that portions of the build process and sources were removed to make
maintenance easier, leaving "unmaintainable binary content" as David
Kastrup describes it.  Evidently the maintainers did not consider at
all that the users' rights to study, modify, and redistribute the code
would thereby be impaired.

Deliberate, yes.  In http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/115057
Chong Yidong writes: "I think it's better for us to merge just the
generated Lisp grammar files, leaving the grammar development for
upstream.  It's an awful lot of infrastructure to pull in...."  IMO,
"just the generated files" should be a red flag for any maintainer
working with copyleft licensing.