* Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs
@ 2002-04-10 9:06 Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]
2002-04-11 14:52 ` Richard Stallman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] @ 2002-04-10 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
Allow me to introduce myself: I am a member of the XEmacs review
board.
In a recent discussion on comp.emacs.xemacs and in private mail, Eli
Zaretskii and I were wondering how to ease communication between the
development teams of GNU Emacs and XEmacs.
Partly as a result of this discussion, I initiated the creation of a
new mailing list "xemacs-design", to which we're moving most traffic
related to the future development of XEmacs. Here's the complete
charter:
> xemacs-design is an open list for discussing the design of
> XEmacs. This includes discussion about planned and ongoing changes to
> functionality and API changes and additions as well as requests for
> them. This is the primary channel for this kind of discussion; related
> code changes will usually not be applied until they have been
> discussed here. This does not include bug reports, which go to
> xemacs-beta.
GNU Emacs developers are very welcome on this list. I hope this is at
least a small step forward, and hope that we can get a little bit more
cross-pollination between the Emacsen that way.
More information about the XEmacs mailing lists and the subscription
process are at
http://www.xemacs.org/Lists/index.html
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-10 9:06 Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] @ 2002-04-11 14:52 ` Richard Stallman 2002-04-11 15:22 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] 2002-04-11 15:51 ` Per Abrahamsen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2002-04-11 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Since we cannot use the code in XEmacs for lack of legal papers from the authors (and even records about who the authors were), there is not much possibility for cooperation with you to be useful for us. I don't see sense in helping you design changes to code we can't use anyway. In order for code to be available to you and to us, it has to start from the code in Emacs (or else from zero). On that sort of project, it might make sense for us to work together. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-11 14:52 ` Richard Stallman @ 2002-04-11 15:22 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] 2002-04-11 18:49 ` Eli Zaretskii 2002-04-12 19:49 ` Richard Stallman 2002-04-11 15:51 ` Per Abrahamsen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] @ 2002-04-11 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel >>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: RMS> Since we cannot use the code in XEmacs for lack of legal papers from RMS> the authors (and even records about who the authors were), there is RMS> not much possibility for cooperation with you to be useful for RMS> us. This is an unsubstantiated claim, and it doesn't get better with repetition---many XEmacs maintainers have signed papers (including myself), and if you have questions about authorship, you need only ask. I'll admit there are probably murky areas, but these are not everywhere. We'll try to oblige---why don't you try it out? RMS> I don't see sense in helping you design changes to code we can't RMS> use anyway. Well, as a sign of goodwill, many XEmacs developers have written and maintained code which are available for GNU Emacs as well---as vice versa. If we adopted your viewpoint, then you're obviously saying we should stop doing this since this is really code we can't use anyway either. RMS> In order for code to be available to you and to us, it has to start RMS> from the code in Emacs (or else from zero). In fact, you just asked me to assist in bringing over code I wrote from XEmacs to GNU Emacs. Where's the availability problem? If you personally would like to abstain from any cooperation, that's your right. It's just an offer of goodwill. I hope other GNU Emacs developers will continue to cooperate in good spirit, as they have done in the past. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-11 15:22 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] @ 2002-04-11 18:49 ` Eli Zaretskii 2002-04-12 19:49 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2002-04-11 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: rms, emacs-devel > From: sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:22:08 +0200 > > RMS> In order for code to be available to you and to us, it has to start > RMS> from the code in Emacs (or else from zero). > > If you personally would like to abstain from any cooperation, that's > your right. It's just an offer of goodwill. I hope other GNU Emacs > developers will continue to cooperate in good spirit, as they have > done in the past. I suggest that we try the cooperative approach in some practical matter, instead of arguing about principles. My experience is that it's much easier to agree about practical issues than about principles. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-11 15:22 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] 2002-04-11 18:49 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2002-04-12 19:49 ` Richard Stallman 2002-04-12 20:09 ` Stefan Monnier 2002-04-13 14:59 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2002-04-12 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel This is an unsubstantiated claim, and it doesn't get better with repetition---many XEmacs maintainers have signed papers (including myself), and if you have questions about authorship, you need only ask. You proposed cooperation, so I thought we were having a civil conversation, not an argument where people say "I dare you to prove that!" In the interests of cooperation I will explain the situation in a little more detail--perhaps then you will see the difficulty we are in. Some XEmacs developers have signed papers, and some have not. So we can consider using a piece of code from XEmacs. Sometimes the authors are people who have signed papers (or will do so), and sometimes they are not. But the hardest problem is that in many cases we cannot reliably identify all the authors of a substantial piece of code. I wish it were true that we could simply ask someone, but XEmacs has a history of ten years, during which many different people maintained it, and for much of that time without keeping records. Even if all those people wished to cooperate, with all the good will in the world their memories are not up to it. The task facing them would be to name everyone that wrote more than 15 lines over the past N years. The unaided human memory can't do that task reliably. That is why it is important to keep records, and why we usually can't use code in XEmacs unless its history was particularly short and simple. There are cases, such as your package code, which are easier--where it does seem that we can identify the authors and they have signed papers. For such code, we can cooperate. I wish this were true for all of XEmacs, but I know from various experiences over the last 6 years there are large parts for which it is not. RMS> I don't see sense in helping you design changes to code we can't RMS> use anyway. Well, as a sign of goodwill, many XEmacs developers have written and maintained code which are available for GNU Emacs as well---as vice versa. If we adopted your viewpoint, then you're obviously saying we should stop doing this since this is really code we can't use anyway either. If the XEmacs developers saw a legal difficulty in using code from Emacs, then they would rationally reach such a conclusion. However, as far as I have heard, they regard all the code in Emacs as available for their use. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-12 19:49 ` Richard Stallman @ 2002-04-12 20:09 ` Stefan Monnier 2002-04-13 1:31 ` Francesco Potorti` ` (2 more replies) 2002-04-13 14:59 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] 1 sibling, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2002-04-12 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: sperber, emacs-devel > This is an unsubstantiated claim, and it doesn't get better with > repetition---many XEmacs maintainers have signed papers (including > myself), and if you have questions about authorship, you need only > ask. > > You proposed cooperation, so I thought we were having a civil > conversation, His answer was quite civil, I believe. He just pointed out that he knows about those problems tracking authorship and that his proposal is hence just about agreeing on principle to try and cooperate within the bounds of what is possible and to try to improve those bounds. I think the reason he came this way is because there is a feeling within the XEmacs community (or so I believe) that the Emacs development has generally been opposed to cooperation (even in the absence of any legal obstacle). Whether this feeling is justified or not is of course irrelevant. All that matters is that we make it clear on both sides that we consider cooperation as something desirable. I think this is very desirable indeed. I have been reading the xemacs-beta list for a while and I hope some XEmacs developers can find the time to follow the emacs-devel list as well. If the willingness to cooperate is clear, then we will find ways to cooperate in various occasions. Those can be minor and small for a start. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-12 20:09 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2002-04-13 1:31 ` Francesco Potorti` 2002-04-13 8:16 ` Eli Zaretskii 2002-04-14 16:26 ` Richard Stallman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Francesco Potorti` @ 2002-04-13 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw) If the willingness to cooperate is clear, then we will find ways to cooperate in various occasions. Those can be minor and small for a start. For a start, thanks to efforts by Martin Buchholz which I heartily aided, the etags versions of Emacs and Xemacs are one and the same, and so have been for about one year. Yes, it was a very minor effort, and certainly a very easy and limited one, but we did it :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-12 20:09 ` Stefan Monnier 2002-04-13 1:31 ` Francesco Potorti` @ 2002-04-13 8:16 ` Eli Zaretskii 2002-04-14 16:26 ` Richard Stallman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2002-04-13 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: rms, sperber, emacs-devel > From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@RUM.cs.yale.edu> > Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:09:28 -0400 > > All that matters is that we make it clear on both sides that we consider > cooperation as something desirable. > > I think this is very desirable indeed. Full agreement. FWIW, I don't think anyone will disagree with that. The challenge is to be able to translate this agreement in principle into practical cooperation. > If the willingness to cooperate is clear, then we will find ways to > cooperate in various occasions. Those can be minor and small for a start. Yes, small ventures is the way to start this, IMHO. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-12 20:09 ` Stefan Monnier 2002-04-13 1:31 ` Francesco Potorti` 2002-04-13 8:16 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2002-04-14 16:26 ` Richard Stallman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2002-04-14 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel His answer was quite civil, I believe. The words practically accused me of deliberately repeating a lie. But it seems that he didn't mean it that way, so I won't hold it against him. I don't think he is a native English speaker; perhaps he did not realize what those words normally imply. I think the reason he came this way is because there is a feeling within the XEmacs community (or so I believe) that the Emacs development has generally been opposed to cooperation (even in the absence of any legal obstacle). Whether this feeling is justified or not is of course irrelevant. That is a very grave accusation against me, and whether it is justified ought to be important to anyone who works with me, just as it is to me. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-12 19:49 ` Richard Stallman 2002-04-12 20:09 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2002-04-13 14:59 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] 2002-04-14 16:27 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] @ 2002-04-13 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel >>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: RMS> This is an unsubstantiated claim, and it doesn't get better with RMS> repetition---many XEmacs maintainers have signed papers (including RMS> myself), and if you have questions about authorship, you need only RMS> ask. RMS> You proposed cooperation, so I thought we were having a civil RMS> conversation, not an argument where people say "I dare you to prove RMS> that!" I'm sorry if it sounded that way, it is not what I intended. I was suggesting that you identify pieces of code (like you did with the startup-paths code) that would be good starting points for shared development and ask the authorship question. It is very possible we won't be able to track it all down to the point of making you comfortable, or that not all the authors have signed papers. On the other hand, it is also possible that authorship can be identified, and that papers exist or can be obtained. It may also be possible in some instances to replace code with unclear authorship or lack of papers by code with clear authorship and papers. I'll try to help with this. RMS> I wish it were true that we could simply ask someone, but XEmacs RMS> has a history of ten years, during which many different people RMS> maintained it, and for much of that time without keeping records. Yes, but for much of that time (when Steve Baur took over, and I suspect even before that), we have kept records. I can say for myself that I'll try my best to help. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-13 14:59 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] @ 2002-04-14 16:27 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2002-04-14 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel I'm sorry if it sounded that way, it is not what I intended. If you didn't mean it that way, then I am not upset about it. Don't worry about it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-11 14:52 ` Richard Stallman 2002-04-11 15:22 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] @ 2002-04-11 15:51 ` Per Abrahamsen 2002-04-12 19:49 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 2002-04-11 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: sperber, emacs-devel Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > Since we cannot use the code in XEmacs for lack of legal papers from > the authors (and even records about who the authors were), there is > not much possibility for cooperation with you to be useful for us. Even without code sharing, we can share programming interfaces. I can't speak for "us", but that would be useful me. > In order for code to be available to you and to us, it has to start > from the code in Emacs (or else from zero). Lots of code developed for XEmacs start from "zero", or from code developed by people who have signed papers. Some of it would probably be more likely to be useful in Emacs, if Emacs developers gave input to it early in the design process. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs 2002-04-11 15:51 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 2002-04-12 19:49 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2002-04-12 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: sperber, emacs-devel > In order for code to be available to you and to us, it has to start > from the code in Emacs (or else from zero). Lots of code developed for XEmacs start from "zero", or from code developed by people who have signed papers. In those cases, cooperation could make sense. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-04-14 16:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-04-10 9:06 Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] 2002-04-11 14:52 ` Richard Stallman 2002-04-11 15:22 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] 2002-04-11 18:49 ` Eli Zaretskii 2002-04-12 19:49 ` Richard Stallman 2002-04-12 20:09 ` Stefan Monnier 2002-04-13 1:31 ` Francesco Potorti` 2002-04-13 8:16 ` Eli Zaretskii 2002-04-14 16:26 ` Richard Stallman 2002-04-13 14:59 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] 2002-04-14 16:27 ` Richard Stallman 2002-04-11 15:51 ` Per Abrahamsen 2002-04-12 19:49 ` Richard Stallman
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).