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 18:26:38 +0200 Message-ID: <87wqf6fkg1.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> <874n2aisqf.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83vbuq9z2c.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396542412 488 80.91.229.3 (3 Apr 2014 16:26:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:26:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 03 18:26:47 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 1WVkTU-0007nc-Rw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:26:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44999 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkTU-0000ZA-Eu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:26:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42099) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkTQ-0000Yt-RY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:26:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkTP-0006Qy-LF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:26:40 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:32915) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkTP-0006Qu-Ip for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:26:39 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40091 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkTO-0007pb-VF; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:26:39 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 89C05E04FB; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 18:26:38 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83vbuq9z2c.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:07:23 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:171277 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > > 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. Nonsense. For most court cases there are precedents that are getting referenced. In the U.S., both sides have to pay their own legal expenses. Judges _may_ award legal costs to a defendant if the case was brought forward clearly frivolously and/or vexatiously. That is very rarely done. A successful defense will be expensive even in the rare case that the case is decided in summary judgment. > 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. If an employer of a non-assigned contributor is sued by the FSF over infringement of some FSF-copyrighted software, the whole case can get thrown out of court if the FSF is shown to have "dirty hands", namely to have incorporated code themselves that is legally under copyright by the employer. In the case of XEmacs, we are not necessarily talking about core developers highly sympathetic to the FSF. There is no playful element to the history of the Emacs/XEmacs schism like with the Emacs/vi "editor wars". The details of the complex Emacs/XEmacs relation aside, nobody should be blamed for choosing to err on the safe side. In particular since the copyright maximalists are pretty successful in eroding the safe side and moving the borderlines. -- David Kastrup