[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] XEmacs packaging/whatever.

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] XEmacs packaging/whatever.
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:44:28 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2005-06-18) writes:
>> I am tempted to do "a)" without any explanation.  Whether this can
>> be called source or not we can clarify once we get some position
>> from the FSF, and it is not different from what XEmacs does,
>> anyway.  If it is not good for source, we can point this out
>> afterwards.  If XEmacs calls their packages "binary", so can we.
> Why do they put source code at all into those packages if they call
> it "binary"?

Because the GPL demands that distribution includes either the source,
or a written warranty to provide it on request.

> Why not just output files in selected formats, like info, PDF, and
> plain text?

Because XEmacs has no source packages.  They have _only_ binary
packages which include the source per XEmacs central's definition.  At
least that's what I believe I understood from the discussion.

Since I am not too good at understanding XEmacs developers, I might be
mistaken about that, but then I'd really wonder what all the noise
would have been about.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]