Thomas Lord writes: > Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > 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. > > > > It was a an early instance of a pattern that has proved reliable, > since those days: > > A project (like Emacs) gets to a stage of development
If you want to go there, I'd be happy to :-), but please note that I was not talking about the Great Fork of 1994, I was talking about the *present* state of affairs where XEmacs developers regularly merge code from Emacs with minimal effort or discussion, while Emacs developers generally do not consider using XEmacs code at all unless the author is easily available to sign an assignment. And some are afraid to even look at it (in discussions with Ben Wing, Ken Handa went to the length of removing the whiteboard markers from the room so that no code would be fixed in a medium -- I hope that was a joke!) Stefan will probably put it a bit differently, as I believe he personally has done some reverse synching, but I'm pretty sure he will confirm that the legal hurdles are much lower and the amount of code synching much higher in the Emacs -> XEmacs direction than the reverse. I doubt he will deny that the legal hurdles are a big factor in reducing the reverse sync flow to a trickle. _______________________________________________ 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/
