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

[David Kastrup]

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