On 30 Sep 1999, David Coe wrote:
Is that still an accurate description of the legal status (from
FSF's perspective) of XEmacs, and if so, shouldn't we move it to
non-free?
Yes, probably; but no. RMS is referring to the fact that many authors
of many pieces of xemacs haven't assigned
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 05:01:05AM +0100, Chris Rutter wrote:
Yes, probably; but no. RMS is referring to the fact that many authors
of many pieces of xemacs haven't assigned copyright to the FSF,
meaning that copyright remains with them, or possibly even their
employer, depending on sticky
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 09:14:15AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The FSF does only include code in GNU programs if the author assigns the
copyright to the FSF by signing a paper.
Wrong.
Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/software/
At
[I searched the archives, but didn't find a previous discussion
about this; if I missed it, please just point me in the right
direction. Thanks.]
I've been using both XEmacs(20) and Emacs(20), and while investigating
some of their differences in behavior I stumbled upon
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 12:54:32AM +, David Coe wrote:
Is that still an accurate description of the legal status (from
FSF's perspective) of XEmacs, and if so, shouldn't we move it to
non-free?
The FSF does only include code in GNU programs if the author assigns the
copyright to the FSF
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 12:54:32AM +, David Coe was heard to say:
[quoting RMS]
But in another sense it is not GNU software, because we can't use
XEmacs in the GNU system: using it would mean paying a price in
terms of our ability to enforce the GPL. Some of the people who have
On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The FSF does only include code in GNU programs if the author assigns the
copyright to the FSF by signing a paper.
Wrong.
Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/software/
At least shtool and WindowMaker are copyrighted by their authors.
Denis
There are two things:
- copyright (who owns it?)
- licence (what can I do with it?)
Debian is only concerned with the second point.
On Thursday 30 September 1999, at 0 h 54, the keyboard of David Coe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in another sense it is not GNU software, because we can't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The FSF does only include code in GNU programs if the author assigns the
copyright to the FSF by signing a paper.
Wrong.
indeed. Even in the FSF's Emacs 20.4 there are parts which are:
Copyright (C) 1995, 1997
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 10:10:54AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
It is very ancient rms' opinion: the FSF asks you to yield the copyright to
them, because they fear the GPL is not a sufficient warranty, before a court.
No, they just know that only the copyright owner can sue for copyright
10 matches
Mail list logo