From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Compiled files without sources???? Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:33:42 +0900 Message-ID: <874o21pazd.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87vcus3slm.fsf@engster.org> <87k4b4jv8p.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <877h7444uj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87tya82mv5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ei1bzjwg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <4E3133CE.7010101@cs.ucla.edu> <4E31F0B3.3030505@cs.ucla.edu> <87mxfw90oo.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87r558ms8j.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87zkjv33w3.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87sjpn8if0.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87sjpm7lvt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <878vrepc6g.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87mxfunx4h.fsf@gnus.org> <877h6yp652.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312202037 26680 80.91.229.12 (1 Aug 2011 12:33:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:33:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: Tim Cross Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 01 14:33:50 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnrgr-00060o-Qg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:33:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57314 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnrgr-0001Fv-BH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:33:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41013) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnrgp-0001Fj-CS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:33:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnrgo-0006uf-2P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:33:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:55750) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qnrgn-0006u1-Ig for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:33:46 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4199B3FA06E2; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 21:33:35 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 386AD1A26F8; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 21:33:43 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.1.93a under 21.5 (beta31) "ginger" cd1f8c4e81cd XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.223 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:142628 Archived-At: Tim Cross writes: > I think it is far more likely the error was due to an honest error > in understanding/interpretation of the licensing requirements > rather than the somewhat malicious and deliberate interpretation > you have suggested. No malice at all is implied, just a lack of due diligence. Obviously there was an error in understanding the implications of the licensing requirements for what Emacs *should* do (though Emacs is in no way legally bound, of course). More important in my opinion is the fact that portions of the build process and sources were removed to make maintenance easier, leaving "unmaintainable binary content" as David Kastrup describes it. Evidently the maintainers did not consider at all that the users' rights to study, modify, and redistribute the code would thereby be impaired. Deliberate, yes. In http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/115057 Chong Yidong writes: "I think it's better for us to merge just the generated Lisp grammar files, leaving the grammar development for upstream. It's an awful lot of infrastructure to pull in...." IMO, "just the generated files" should be a red flag for any maintainer working with copyleft licensing.