Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Michael Albinus <Michael.Albinus@alcatel.de> writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >     > Maybe the Tramp web pages should go into the Emacs web pages.
> >
> >     I don't believe so. Tramp exists outside Emacs 21.3.50 as well, for
> >     older Emacsen and for XEmacs.
> >
> > I see no connection between that and the issue.
> 
> The Tramp web pages contain parts which might be not desirable in
> the Emacs web:
> 
> - There is a chapter about Tramp installation. Not needed if Tramp
>   is inside Emacs; therefore this chapter is discarded when
>   tramp.texi is uploaded to Emacs CVS.

That explains why tramp has its own CVS apart from what is in Emacs.

> - Tramp has different syntax for Emacs and XEmacs. I don't like it,
>   but that's the status. Therefore, there are TWO web pages for
>   Tramp, each linked to the other.

Two _web_ pages or two _info_ pages?

> I guess both reasons make it reasonable to have Tramp web pages
> outside Emacs.

There is nothing to be said against having Tramp web pages out of
Emacs.  Since tramp is integrated with Emacs, one should also take a
look at how to integrate documentation to it.  But as long as tramp
is also a separate project, the focus of interest it has as a
separate project should certainly also be documented separately.

What I was originally asking was why tramp is not a GNU project,
which is surprising when you see it also as a part of Emacs and (c)
FSF.  There would be some valid answers:

a) tramp explicitly condones nonfree software.  I don't see this here
(and nonfree is not the same as non-GNU, or non-GPL).

b) there are parts of tramp that are problematic to be distributed by
the FSF, perhaps related to encryption or something.  But then the
issue is not GNU or non-GNU, but the distribution by the FSF.  If we
have a problem in that area (which I certainly don't hope), nothing
will help except ripping tramp from Emacs and all servers in the
U.S., and have it copyrighted and distributed by someone outside of
U.S.A. and the FSF.

There might be other reasons I overlook.  I just mentioned that it is
surprising for people looking for information about tramp that it
is categorized as non-GNU instead of GNU.  There might be reasons for
this, and it is ok if there are, but maybe it is only a historical
accident.  If that is all that is there, then one could correct it.
If there is more to it, then one can leave things as they are.

I have no clue.  That's why I was asking.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum