[AUCTeX-devel] Re: [comp.emacs.xemacs] AUCTeX 11.84 released

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2007-01-27) writes:
>
>> Cc to auctex-devel.
>>
>> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Olivier Galibert writes:
>>>
>>>  > As for the AUCTeX problem, legalities aside, it looks like we're
>>>  > distributing it against the wishes of (one of|the) main maintainer.
>>>  > Shouldn't we just stop?
>>>
>>> Hey, that applies to distributing XEmacs itself.  Shouldn't we just
>>> stop?  I don't think so.
>
> Since the version distributed with the XEmacs package collection is
> unsupported upstream, one could conclude that the XEmacs project is
> taking care of support for that version.  In that case you should at
> least add a disclaimer of the different support address and change
> the bug reporting address.

Well, the GPL states

[in the preamble, so just relevant to establish the spirit]

  Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software.  If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

[in the terms]

  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
    when run, [... not relevant here]


So yes, this should be done.  However, it must be pointed out that
legally this does not depend on the age of the package, even though
ancient packages tend to reflect worse on the reputation of the
creators.

But it would probably help considerably if the documentation and
purported release dates of the XEmacs packages also included the date
when the last synch to upstream occured.

>> I think we should just declare XEmacs a non-goal for AUCTeX and
>> either removing all XEmacs support or declare it open for bit rot.
>> It is worse than just a thankless job tieing up a considerable
>> amount of resources.  It is not just that we don't get any thanks
>> for the work we invest, but also all kinds of abuse.
>
> My experience with the XEmacs lists obviously differs from yours.

Well, I am glad that it does.  I'll leave communication with the
XEmacs lists about AUCTeX to you in future.  I am tired of being
accused of being a crybaby, bully and insulting or similar whenever
bringing any issue up.  Even if it is just in the wake of a release
announcement for a new AUCTeX version for the sake of XEmacs users.

So I'll stop announcing new AUCTeX releases to the XEmacs user list.
I am just not willing to bear up with the consequences any longer.
Feel free to take up the job.

[Lots snipped because of agreement]

> So at least in this respect we are heading in the opposite direction
> of your proposal.

Ralf, we always did this.  Of _course_ we have always been providing
for XEmacs users far beyond the call of duty.  That is not the
question.  The question is whether we are doing them a favor by
continuing playing the charade of being the bad bullies, crybabies,
and insulters that make life hard for the XEmacs core developers.  It
is the combination of taking both the work and heaps of blame that I
find not much use in sustaining my sanity.  I am glad that your
experience on the lists have been different, but then you have mostly
been spared discussing "the big picture".

And I am thinking that maybe the only thing we can really offer XEmacs
users of AUCTeX in good conscience is a switch to Emacs, and not for
lack of trying.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum