Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-10-01 Thread Chris Rutter
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

Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-10-01 Thread Raul Miller
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

Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-10-01 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
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

Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-09-30 Thread David Coe
[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

Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-09-30 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
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

Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-09-30 Thread Daniel Burrows
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

Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-09-30 Thread barbier
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

Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-09-30 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
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

Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-09-30 Thread Gunnar Evermann
[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

Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?

1999-09-30 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
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