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: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:07:23 +0300 Message-ID: <83vbuq9z2c.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> <83ioqrbr0l.fsf@gnu.org> <874n2aisqf.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396541302 17336 80.91.229.3 (3 Apr 2014 16:08:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:08:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 03 18:08:16 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 1WVkBc-0002WT-Dv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:08:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44910 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkBb-0007Aa-RH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:08:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37708) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkAk-0005jk-BO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:07:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkAf-0000Oq-7o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:07:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:34592) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkAY-0000DR-Mu; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:07:10 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N3G00F00PN1UX00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:07:09 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N3G00F2HQ3WSV40@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:07:09 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <874n2aisqf.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.169 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:171276 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:59:20 +0200 > > > 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. > > Nobody claimed that the broken copyright system does not lead to a whole > lot of real damage to a whole lot of software development. On this general level, I agree. However, I only talked about a very specific situation. In any case, the system being broken notwithstanding, we shouldn't see problems where none exist (yet). > > may be somewhat instructional about some current court practice in the > U.S.A. That's the URL from which I quoted a few messages ago. > Please note that Oracle/Google ruling is unfortunately somewhat > atypical and on appeal (appeal hearing was in December) > Even if you take this article at face value (as opposed to someone whose interests are unknown reiterating rumors), the conclusion is that jury is still out in this issue. Which is exactly what I wrote: this issue is not decided yet, and precedents are contradictory. > and that the FSF would not have been in a position to pay the kind of > legal expenses incurred here. If there is a precedent, you don't need to pay any expenses. Anyway, this all is only relevant if someone of those who wrote the code that was discussed and reimplemented actually sue the FSF. Since such code almost always comes from Free Software, I don't think there's a danger of this.