> ;; That isn't covered by an FSF copyright assignment (?),
IIUC this is still the case (and historically it's the main reason why
it's not been included in Emacs).
> ;; unlike this ;; code, and seems not to be well-maintained for Emacs
> (though I've ;; submitted fixes).
Indeed, it is better to
On Apr 03, 2011, at 08:55 PM, Andreas Röhler wrote:
>;; That isn't covered by an FSF copyright assignment (?), unlike this
>;; code, and seems not to be well-maintained for Emacs (though I've
>;; submitted fixes).
I've said before, but it's worth repeating. While I still believe that at
some poi
>> ;; That isn't covered by an FSF copyright assignment (?), unlike this
>> ;; code, and seems not to be well-maintained for Emacs (though I've
>> ;; submitted fixes).
> I've said before, but it's worth repeating. While I still believe that at
> some point I did sign a copyright assignment for my
On Apr 04, 2011, at 05:46 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> ;; That isn't covered by an FSF copyright assignment (?), unlike this
>>> ;; code, and seems not to be well-maintained for Emacs (though I've
>>> ;; submitted fixes).
>
>> I've said before, but it's worth repeating. While I still believe tha
>> The problem was with some of the other contributors, from what I
>> remember.
Barry> Is there a way to check specifically? I'm sure we could get
Barry> Skip, Tim, and Ken to sign papers if necessary.
I have also volunteered relatively recently (within the last couple months)
Am 05.04.2011 00:24, schrieb Glenn Morris:
Stefan Monnier wrote:
The problem was with some of the other contributors, from what I remember.
For example, Andreas Roehler has issues with copyright assignments:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-03/msg00029.html
So it is. My
