From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: divya@subvertising.org Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: On Bug #49065 and commercial-emacs Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 02:33:42 +0000 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27277"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail To: Emacs Devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 03 04:34:51 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1swBg2-0006ze-An for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2024 04:34:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1swBf4-0008Du-E7; Wed, 02 Oct 2024 22:33:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1swBf2-0008Dg-P1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2024 22:33:48 -0400 Original-Received: from confino.investici.org ([93.190.126.19]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1swBf0-0001FJ-MA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2024 22:33:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=subvertising.org; s=stigmate; t=1727922822; bh=jGw5XNsT6T84XuBFBZKz17CXKQRPdOLN5mEOOP2hj+c=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=FzdyS2k4Uwyf1CmRxAnSTFhnjWGu0oOYsO13qfz2Rwk8xNc71zoJ59Wgt3vS6CFVv ZSHw87bqVD374NTLXeGsKEBp14ERp34WkxwY1uhErLelSOq+W1ltmSQiILtS6geFxJ KSxydFlA9LXoLriNFZ6scqimX4lLaI1AlDLGAA9s= Original-Received: from 2.mail-backend.investici.org (unknown [10.0.0.12]) by confino.investici.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4XJwj24F71z118j for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 02:33:42 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from 2.webmail.investici.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: divya@subvertising.org) by 2.mail-backend.investici.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4XJwj23025z2xGF for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 02:33:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender: divya@subvertising.org Received-SPF: pass client-ip=93.190.126.19; envelope-from=divya@subvertising.org; helo=confino.investici.org X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:324259 Archived-At: Hello Emacs Devel, I stumbled upon the huge patch in #49065 just after discovering `commercial-emacs`. I have two concerns: - There hasn't been any work in reviewing the patch, and I want to give it a shot. Especially the parts concerning Gnus. - The writing in README of commercial-emacs repository, sounds weird if not hostile? > Ah, but if it could reach those heights. If by some miracle it did, the > choices for the FSF are the same as before: enlist RMS to embark on a > coding frenzy that achieves feature parity, grant myself commit rights, > or continue not noticing me. If my history of user acquisition is any > indication, the last outcome is most likely. https://shmelpa.commandlinesystems.com/ What is the cause for this hostility? From what I'm able to see in the discussion after the patch was posted, the maintainers basically asked dick to divide the huge patch into smaller pieces so that it is feasible to review and merge it. I have seen no signs of hostility, so I do not understand this gesture of forking and saying rudely that FSF would be racing for feature parity or something. Maybe I'm getting this wrongly, but it does feel a bit arrogant. Also, are there any license/copyright issues if one could get their patch merged? From what I understand, there shouldn't be, since the patch was made to Emacs and the fork also is GPL. Moreover, from the site: > This is the oft ideated, never sublimated “forge” repository for emacs. > As it is hosted on a site using non-free software, the work herein is > not the official GNU Emacs source, and does not entreat the FSF to > enforce its license. GPL enforces all derivatives to also be copyleft, as it should, to ensure that the libre nature of the software doesn't get removed. So, what does "does not entreat the FSF to enforce its license" mean? I would like to begin work on this patch within a week or so, and would have a lot of questions for the maintainers and, of course, Lars. Regards, Divya Ranjan Mathematics, Philosophy and Libre Software.