Re: Licence of ts-comint

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> to LLVM being made. For similar reasons, Emacs and GUD has for a long
> time not supported a Elf-3 capable debugger, because before GDB got that
> capability that would mean supporting LLDB, which would be "bad" (it not
> being GPL-licensed and all).

I explicitly said I'd be happy to integrate LLDB support into GUD.
The only reason why it's not there is because that package was removed
from the upstream repository at that time.

I know Richard had a different opinion, but he was not maintainer.
I don't know what is the current maintainers's opinion about include
support for LLVM/LLDB/... into Emacs.  I'm personally have no issue
with it.

> I've seen this quote on some forum online: "The FSF was formed to
> replace proprietary software with free software. Having succeeded, it
> now lives on to replace free software with free software".

FWIW, there is currently a lot of effort from various companies to
rewrite GPL'd Free Software into non-copyleft Free Software.

Maybe the FSF also wastes some time doing so, but it's very far from the
worst culprit in this regard.

> It's obviously meant as a joke, but I hope you can see where that joke
> is coming from.

Oh, yes.  I see a lot of anti-FSF bashing behind it for ideological
reasons, indeed.

> If the GPL v1 was good enough for free software... Why on earth should
> the FSF develop and deploy a new license which renders all former GPLed
> code "incompatible" (as you put it)? I'm lost for words.

GPLv1+ is compatible with GPLv2+ which is compatible with GPLv3+.
So you'll only find problems with those people who used "GPLv2-only"
such as the Linux project.

> If you now make the GPL-license incompatible not only with BSD or
> MIT-type licenses, but also the GPL license itself... Prepare to be
> even further berated next time the GPL vs BSD-license is up for
> debate in online forums.

The FSF will be berated no matter what it does, because its goal irk
influential people.

> That said... My  small and pretty insignificant package is already
> licensed "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along".
> If you still think this is "incompatible"

If someone said it's "incompatible" he was confused.


        Stefan