From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unibyte characters, strings, and buffers Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:59:20 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <874n2aisqf.fsf@fencepost.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> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396526793 12727 80.91.229.3 (3 Apr 2014 12:06:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 12:06:33 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 03 14:06:28 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 1WVgKX-0006Fc-Uf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:01:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43671 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVgKX-0006Iw-HO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:01:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60367) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVgKO-0006Ad-Le for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:01:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVgKJ-0001Ty-Rg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:01:04 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:54496) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVgKJ-0001TV-Lj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:00:59 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WVgFp-00016q-D1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:56:21 +0200 Original-Received: from x2f49c39.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.156.57]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:56:21 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by x2f49c39.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:56:21 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 32 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f49c39.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:WJyyBFXkMak22EIcDB5Bwx9VCeQ= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:171267 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > 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. Nobody claimed that the broken copyright system does not lead to a whole lot of real damage to a whole lot of software development. may be somewhat instructional about some current court practice in the U.S.A. Please note that Oracle/Google ruling is unfortunately somewhat atypical and on appeal (appeal hearing was in December) and that the FSF would not have been in a position to pay the kind of legal expenses incurred here. -- David Kastrup