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

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2005-06-19) writes:
>
>> Why is Stephen Turnbull fighting like a madman to declare the
>> binary packages as "all-source-included" if they actually
>> distribute separate source packages?  And what would the difference
>> be?
>
> I don't think they actually distribute separate source packages in
> the sense that there are separate tarballs available for download.
> The `packages' directory in their CVS repository is what makes up
> the source package distribution as a whole, that means the packages
> together with a build infrastructure.

Well, if that is more or less the terminology they use themselves with
regard to "source" and "binary", it is funny that at least Stephen
insists that for the sake of the GPL, what they call "binary" is
really supposed to encompass "source" as well.

Now as to your "why don't they include an offer?" question: this offer
has to be included in writing, and binary-only may only be passed on
with non-commercial distribution (which the GPL, in contrast to a lot
of other terms, fails to define) if the details of the offer are
passed on as well.  Whatever "non-commercial" means, it is not
DFSG-compliant.  CVS might well be called a medium customary for
software interchange nowadays, and in CVS you can get the source
corresponding to any version.  But it still would mean that somebody
that does not want to include offers and similar has to distribute the
source tree as well, and the XEmacs people are understandably not too
enthused about telling everybody that they can distribute copies of,
say, sumo tarballs only together with CVS tree snapshots.

I can't find the legal view in the interpretation of Stephen Turnbull
convincing, which is why I asked at the FSF.  After all, most of the
copyright for AUCTeX (and Emacs) sits at the FSF, so their opinion
would appear somewhat relevant.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum