> > Er, why make Arch code license-incompatible with a lot of
> > GPLv2 code that's out there, such as the Linux kernel and (for
> > now) XEmacs?
>
> Last I looked XEmacs still was distributed under the GPL>=2, so
> it is perfectly compatible with GPLv3.
Sure, if somebody wants to incorporate XEmacs in a future version
of tla, they're free to do so, and we'll applaud their taste. But
free software is about cooperation, and respecting others' goals.
Free software is about freedom. If it was about cooperation, and
respecting others' goals, then we would be using a all permissive
license like the Modified BSD license.
Footnotes: [1] Note that this argument is isomorphic to the logic
that Richard Stallman uses for claiming that XEmacs's failure to
collect assignments makes XEmacs code "unavailable" to Emacs,
although the specific obstacle is different.
You might want to revise your history lesson about what Richard
thinks. http://www.stallman.org/articles/xemacs.origin
Hint, it had nothing to do with copyright assignments.
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
