Re: Unibyte characters, strings, and buffers

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:26:38 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> >> <URL:http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/googles-copyright-win-against-oracle-is-in-danger-on-appeal/>
> >
> > Even if you take this article at face value (as opposed to someone
> > whose interests are unknown reiterating rumors), the conclusion is
> > that jury is still out in this issue.  Which is exactly what I wrote:
> > this issue is not decided yet, and precedents are contradictory.
> >
> >> and that the FSF would not have been in a position to pay the kind of
> >> legal expenses incurred here.
> >
> > If there is a precedent, you don't need to pay any expenses.
> 
> Nonsense.

You misunderstood.  I meant there would be no need to pay for creating
a precedent where one already exists.

> If an employer of a non-assigned contributor is sued by the FSF over
> infringement of some FSF-copyrighted software, the whole case can get
> thrown out of court if the FSF is shown to have "dirty hands", namely to
> have incorporated code themselves that is legally under copyright by the
> employer.

If you are afraid to get into a road accident, stay inside.

> In the case of XEmacs, we are not necessarily talking about core
> developers highly sympathetic to the FSF.  There is no playful element
> to the history of the Emacs/XEmacs schism like with the Emacs/vi "editor
> wars".

The amount of code borrowed by XEmacs from Emacs is orders of
magnitude larger than the other way around.  So this is a red herring.

> nobody should be blamed for choosing to err on the safe side.

I never blamed anyone.  People should know the true state of affairs,
and then decide for themselves.