From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unibyte characters, strings, and buffers Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:06:02 +0300 Message-ID: <83ioqrbr0l.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831txozsqa.fsf@gnu.org> <83ppl7y30l.fsf@gnu.org> <87r45nouvx.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <8361myyac6.fsf@gnu.org> <87a9capqfr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <5335C336.3080108@dancol.org> <87mwg9nti0.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83ioqxdzax.fsf@gnu.org> <87ha6hngak.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83k3bacs02.fsf@gnu.org> <87ppl1n2k2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <837g79cc66.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhvomkfb.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396520745 32033 80.91.229.3 (3 Apr 2014 10:25:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:25:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dancol@dancol.org, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 03 12:25:39 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WVeJv-00075K-NM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 11:52:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39829 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVOc3-0006Bu-E4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:06:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42222) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVObu-0005u0-3n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:06:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVObp-0004OU-Ct for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:05:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:51900) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVObp-0004O0-5s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:05:53 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N3E00600Y40JO00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:05:51 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N3E0060LY5RID20@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:05:51 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87lhvomkfb.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 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:171255 Archived-At: > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Cc: dancol@dancol.org, > monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:20:40 +0900 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > In that case if there were enough similarity that the FSF were taken > to court and the case not dismissed immediately, the "it's just an > accident" argument would not fly in court because it would be easy > to show that I know a lot about the XEmacs implementation, and I > personally would undoubtedly be at best greatly inconvenienced by > being called to testify, at worst liable for damages (remember, in > that case the FSF assignment makes me liable for FSF's court costs > and damages, and that agreement doesn't contain mitigating > circumstances like "in good faith" or "invited by Eli Z"). > > No, thank you. My goal is not to convince you to do something you don't want to. The main issue here, at least for me, is not whether Mr. X wants to describe an existing implementation -- we obviously cannot do anything if he doesn't, no matter what are his reasons. The main issue here is, once Mr. X _did_ describe such an implementation, is it OK for someone else, who is not familiar with the actual code, to re-implement it from scratch, and then submit it to Emacs as their own, under assigned copyright. My conclusion from everything I know and read is that YES, it is OK. IOW, I'd like to avoid the situation where others here might become intimidated by what you wrote in a broader sense, and will as result refrain from participating in discussions that reveal details of other implementations, or from assigning their code written based on those discussions. That would cause some real damage to Emacs.