Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * David Kastrup (2005-06-18) writes: > >> I am tempted to do "a)" without any explanation. Whether this can >> be called source or not we can clarify once we get some position >> from the FSF, and it is not different from what XEmacs does, >> anyway. If it is not good for source, we can point this out >> afterwards. If XEmacs calls their packages "binary", so can we. > > Why do they put source code at all into those packages if they call > it "binary"?
Because the GPL demands that distribution includes either the source, or a written warranty to provide it on request. > Why not just output files in selected formats, like info, PDF, and > plain text? Because XEmacs has no source packages. They have _only_ binary packages which include the source per XEmacs central's definition. At least that's what I believe I understood from the discussion. Since I am not too good at understanding XEmacs developers, I might be mistaken about that, but then I'd really wonder what all the noise would have been about. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
