Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <200202281444.g1SEiXo01189@cate0-223.reshall.ou.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: cate0-223.reshall.ou.edu: jcast owned process doing -bs
To: "John A. Turner" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Emacs for Cygwin (was: cygwin-mount.el, Using GDB in NTEMACS) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:52:45 MST."
             <3C7DD3BD DOT F8D10F99 AT pobox DOT com> 
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:44:33 -0600
From: Jon Cast <jcast AT ou DOT edu>


Sorry to start a flamewar, but this needs replying to:

"John A. Turner" <john DOT turner AT pobox DOT com> wrote:

> smiley notwithstanding, that doesn't seem all that amusing to me

Of course not.  After all, you (and all those Linux supporters and
every one else (referring to the Linux supporters, not to you) who
hates RMS) are completely non-political and are therefore /deeply/
offended by GNU's political beliefs, since they are completely
non-contradictory to your completely non-existant political beliefs.
Maybe that's not entirely correct, but if you can't see how that would
be funny if it /were/ correct, there's no point in continuing this.
If it's wrong, but you think it would be funny were it true, please
correct me.

> XEmacs is of course GPL'd, and I'd direct anyone who might wonder
> about the source of misguided comments such as the above to:

From the website you directed me to (from the RMS quote):

> But I can't do that, because substantial parts of XEmacs don't have
> legal papers, or don't have known authors.

Do you deny this (about the ``don't have known authors'' part?)

Also from that website:

> There is no difference in the nature of the copyrights or licenses
> of the two projects. Copyright is defined by law and international
> treaty, and is automatically awarded to the author as soon as a work
> is published.

The important thing here is the ``automatically awarded'' part.  Do
you agree that means implicitly under Copyright's default terms?

Of course, a license may be attached to override those terms.  /But
that license can only be attached by the copyright holder/.  If we
don't know who the copyright holder is, we cannot have a license
statement by him.  So, the code is under default terms, i.e.,
proprietary.  Do you disagree?

Jon Cast

Btw, some XEmacs developers refuse to assign copyright to the FSF.
So, it doesn't seem unreasonable that some Emacs supporters refuse to
use XEmacs.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/