From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: [simon.marshall@misys.com: Font Lock on-the-fly misfontification in C++] Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:57:08 +0200 Message-ID: <85ac6nwdt7.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <20060723142630.GB1433@muc.de> <20060731220419.GF1271@muc.de> <17616.29352.887502.516153@parhasard.net> <85mzanwjct.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <17616.32316.759027.971436@parhasard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1154519866 2614 80.91.229.2 (2 Aug 2006 11:57:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:57:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, simon.marshall@misys.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, bug-cc-mode@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 02 13:57:42 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8FM1-0000sf-B6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:57:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8FM0-0001P4-Ky for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:57:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G8FLo-0001Ng-8F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:57:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G8FLn-0001NH-Cb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:57:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8FLn-0001NE-7m; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:57:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G8FOt-0006vy-Nb; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:00:35 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1G8FLf-0007ex-Bo; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:57:15 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 0A4511CE3084; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 13:57:09 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Aidan Kehoe In-Reply-To: <17616.32316.759027.971436@parhasard.net> (Aidan Kehoe's message of "Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:28:12 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:57998 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:13259 Archived-At: Aidan Kehoe writes: > Ar an dara l=C3=A1 de m=C3=AD L=C3=BAnasa, scr=C3=ADobh David Kastrup:=20 > > > And we use the term "Emacs" for referring to Emacs. > > > When the term "GNU Emacs" is used, it is to draw attention to the > > GNU project and the part Emacs plays within it, not to insinuate > > that the scope of Emacs is supposed to be restricted to within > > GNU. > > No-one uses =E2=80=9CGNU Emacs=E2=80=9D to insinuate that the editor is s= upposed to > be restricted to within the GNU project. What gave you that > impression? Why else use it for distinguishing between Emacs and XEmacs? Their relation to the GNU project is similar. Many parts of GNU are not copyrighted by the FSF, including software carrying "GNU" in its name. > > Contrasting "XEmacs" and "GNU Emacs" is therefore misleading. > > The proper names of the editors are "Emacs" and "XEmacs". > > Then GNU Emacs should call itself just =E2=80=9CEmacs=E2=80=9D on its sta= rtup > screen, as XEmacs calls itself =E2=80=9CXEmacs=E2=80=9D on its startup sc= reen. I repeat: when the term "GNU Emacs" is used, it is to draw attention to the GNU project and the part Emacs plays within it. > > "GNU Emacs" is a distinction, but not one differentiating Emacs > > and XEmacs. > > I disagree. I am afraid that I consider the opinion of the creator of Emacs more relevant than yours with regard on whether Emacs should be allowed to be named Emacs. Of course, you are free to call XEmacs whatever you like. But the name "Emacs" is already taken. > > [...] I don't think it too onerous to expect that XEmacs > > developers call Emacs "Emacs". > > Active developers call your branch of the editor GNU Emacs! It is > hypocritical at best to object when others do likewise. I repeat: When the term "GNU Emacs" is used, it is to draw attention to the GNU project and the part Emacs plays within it, not to insinuate that the scope of Emacs is supposed to be restricted to within GNU. > > The stance that "Emacs" is supposed to mean "Emacs and XEmacs" > > and only "GNU Emacs" is supposed to carry the meaning "Emacs" is > > not really helpful, not even to XEmacs users. > > XEmacs still supports (emacs-version); lots of our documentation > uses =E2=80=9Cemacs=E2=80=9D to refer to any version of the editor, somet= hing the > GNU branch rarely does (that is, it rarely admits that the > documentation may be applicable to other branches.). Don't you find it silly to blame upstream for your failures to update the documentation in order to reflect the fork? > I personally would prefer to do this less; I changed the title bar > to say =E2=80=9CXEmacs=E2=80=9D rather than =E2=80=9Cemacs=E2=80=9D partl= y because of that. A perfectly reasonable stance. I'll give you a historical document which might make it clearer to you why a) the documentation of XEmacs has not from early on bothered to distinguish between Lucid Emacs and Emacs. b) RMS is not too enthused about XEmacs documentation and developers trying to hijack the name of Emacs to mean anything but Emacs. Note that this is all water under the draw bridge now, but historically, the creators of Lucid Emacs laid claim to and hijacked the name Emacs (without any further qualifications) for their own fork of it. Their claim to be the legitimate successor of interest to Emacs was what has fueled the idea that "Emacs" somehow is supposed be a proper name of XEmacs. These claims were made in order to cause developers to move over to Lucid Emacs. XEmacs is not Emacs, but a fork of it. The license of Emacs permits forking its code, it does not permit forking its name. That is a bit of the background why the usage put forth in the Emacs FAQ should be just "Emacs" and "XEmacs". --=20 David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum