From xemacs-m  Sun Feb 23 22:26:42 1997
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA11893
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 22:26:39 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA02221;
	Sun, 23 Feb 1997 20:38:29 -0800
Mail-Copies-To: never
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: paperwork? (was: Re: Is your (favorite) package not in XEmacs ...)
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970216132517.10651A-100000@icemark.thenet.ch>
X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/
X-Face: #!T9!#9s-3o8)*uHlX{Ug[xW7E7Wr!*L46-OxqMu\xz23v|R9q}lH?cRS{rCNe^'[`^sr5"
 f8*@r4ipO6Jl!:Ccq<xoV[Qz2u8<8-+Vwf2gzJ44lf_/y9OaQ`@#Q65{U4/TC)i2`~/M&QI$X>p:9I
 OSS'2{-)-4wBnVeg0S\O4Al@)uC[pD|+
X-Attribution: sb
From: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
In-Reply-To: Benedikt Eric Heinen's message of Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:40:06 +0100 (MET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 23 Feb 1997 20:38:28 -0800
Message-ID: <m24tf27r97.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 53
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.15/XEmacs 20.1

Benedikt Eric Heinen writes:

> Which brings as immediately back to another problem, the possible
> 'merger' with FSF Emacs.

> Will Steve *require* each new package to have all the paperwork
> signed, so we will come closer to a completely paperworked xemacs
> and we'll be able to merge it with the FSF one later?

The current copyright assignment policy is this: All of the copyright
assignment papers are available on ftp.xemacs.org:/pub/beta/FSF.  I
respectfully request but do not require everyone submitting patches to
please sign the assign.future copyright assignment papers.  With Lisp
code, and especially Lisp code derived straight from Emacs it should
be a requirement so the changes can go back RMS.  This is out of
self-defense.  It is much easier to use an identical package with
Emacs than it is to maintain a whole set of patches and carefully
patch them back in with an upgrade.

As to separate packages like VM, I leave copyright assignment fully up
to the individual.  Our medium term goal is to separate packages from
the core via an installable package mechanism, so when the time comes
someone could cons up an FSF XEmacs containing only FSF copyright
assigned Lisp code (and C code too if Sun ever gets off their butt and
Does The Right Thing).

Separate package are not (or shouldn't be) a threat to the GPL status
of XEmacs, just as the existence of third-party GPL packages is not a
threat to an Operating System vendor's license/terms.

> Or will we just forget about any possible merger in the future
> anyway?

I'm not convinced a merger would be the best thing for the Emacs
community.  As one example, Michael Sperber has provided ample
evidence for not blindly jumping into a Guile lisp engine refit.

 ...

> On the other hand, I'd rather vote for cc-mode to again become a
> dumped-by-default package. Why did we *have* to follow the FSF on
> that one anyway?

Because I'm trying to keep the runtime size down.  Also, not everybody
needs C mode, I don't when I'm in Gnus.  Before I started maintaining
XEmacs I rarely used it at any time.  It really is nicer this way
because now Barry doesn't have to worry about the XEmacs maintainer
editing the cc-mode files anymore. :-)

 ...
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.

