From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim Cross Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Compiled files without sources???? Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:10:23 +1000 Message-ID: References: <87vcus3slm.fsf@engster.org> <87k4b4jv8p.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <877h7444uj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87tya82mv5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ei1bzjwg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <4E3133CE.7010101@cs.ucla.edu> <4E31F0B3.3030505@cs.ucla.edu> <87mxfw90oo.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87r558ms8j.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87zkjv33w3.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87sjpn8if0.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87sjpm7lvt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <878vrepc6g.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87mxfunx4h.fsf@gnus.org> <877h6yp652.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312153833 3040 80.91.229.12 (31 Jul 2011 23:10:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 23:10:33 +0000 (UTC) To: Emacs developers Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 01 01:10:29 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnf9R-0003BH-8R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 01:10:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43580 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnf9Q-0004d3-Ny for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:10:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38096) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnf9N-0004cc-Mf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:10:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnf9L-0002BG-Vq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:10:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:35943) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnf9L-0002B4-RT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:10:23 -0400 Original-Received: by iyb14 with SMTP id 14so7714165iyb.0 for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:10:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KcM9RbmVTHQHecppb9n/bYPjRdVNroVNXbpOhdupfLg=; b=k3+cNPTqRZTCfIE5H+Uevzg04eoL+WKJUh8SVxFx9IijJNxhBFPBENEcqrDZUJ+kea tAHK3d5C5vExMPE1noUIdiadCyZ8fuKGk34YGMSppb/QEZAvfSJNNlmx2NSZBeJIXtGH nihpEBfOwTJbOF0fBV/1SKKWTQUwqQjaHyFZs= Original-Received: by 10.231.112.150 with SMTP id w22mr2454166ibp.61.1312153823282; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.231.35.74 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:10:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <877h6yp652.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:142612 Archived-At: On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wr= ote: > Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > > =A0> It was a minor boo-boo, and it's been fixed, > > It wasn't a "boo-boo", it was a deliberate omission for the > convenience of the Emacs and CEDET developers who considered > integration of CEDET functionality more important than the principle > of software freedom. =A0The fact that you consider it a "minor boo-boo" > suggests that the underlying problem is nowhere near to being fixed. > I think this is a completely unjustified statement. There has been nothing in this thread that suggests these files were not included simply for the convenience of developers or because functionality was prioritized over licensing. The fact the files were able to be added without any significant problems of integration does not support your argument as including or not including has little convenience value. The decision to not include them may have been deliberate, but there is simply insufficient information to judge the reasons why they were omitted. Licensing and legal matters are complex, often surprising and frequently open to multiple interpretations. I think it is far more likely the error was due to an honest error in understanding/interpretation of the licensing requirements rather than the somewhat malicious and deliberate interpretation you have suggested. Tim