Pages of the Tramp package.

Pages of the Tramp package.

[David Kastrup]

I just noticed that the home page of `tramp' is at
www.nongnu.org/tramp (and there is nothing at
www.gnu.org/software/tramp).  Considering that `tramp' is distributed
as a part of Emacs and (c) FSF, is there any reason that it is not
considered a GNU project?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[Richard Stallman]

I don't think there is a reason for Tramp to have a separate
repository other than the Emacs one.

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I don't think there is a reason for Tramp to have a separate
> repository other than the Emacs one.

I was talking about its web pages.  The repository is within Emacs.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[Richard Stallman]

    I was talking about its web pages.  The repository is within Emacs.

Maybe the Tramp web pages should go into the Emacs web pages.

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[Michael Albinus]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     I was talking about its web pages.  The repository is within Emacs.
>
> Maybe the Tramp web pages should go into the Emacs web pages.

I don't believe so. Tramp exists outside Emacs 21.3.50 as well, for
older Emacsen and for XEmacs.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[David Kastrup]

Michael Albinus <Michael.Albinus@alcatel.de> writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >     I was talking about its web pages.  The repository is within Emacs.
> >
> > Maybe the Tramp web pages should go into the Emacs web pages.
> 
> I don't believe so. Tramp exists outside Emacs 21.3.50 as well, for
> older Emacsen and for XEmacs.

Sure.  But I find it strange that it should be labelled a non-GNU
project when it is (C) FSF and part of Emacs as distributed.  I think
it more likely that people will expect to find it on
www.gnu.org/software/tramp rather than www.nongnu.org/tramp, given
that it is part of Emacs.

Of course, this is up to the maintainer.  But the choice seems a bit
weird.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[Michael Albinus]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Michael Albinus <Michael.Albinus@alcatel.de> writes:
>
>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >     I was talking about its web pages.  The repository is within Emacs.
>> >
>> > Maybe the Tramp web pages should go into the Emacs web pages.
>> 
>> I don't believe so. Tramp exists outside Emacs 21.3.50 as well, for
>> older Emacsen and for XEmacs.
>
> Sure.  But I find it strange that it should be labelled a non-GNU
> project when it is (C) FSF and part of Emacs as distributed.  I think
> it more likely that people will expect to find it on
> www.gnu.org/software/tramp rather than www.nongnu.org/tramp, given
> that it is part of Emacs.
>
> Of course, this is up to the maintainer.  But the choice seems a bit
> weird.

I fully agree with you. But as you said, decision is up to the
maintainer. That's Kai.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[Richard Stallman]

    > Maybe the Tramp web pages should go into the Emacs web pages.

    I don't believe so. Tramp exists outside Emacs 21.3.50 as well, for
    older Emacsen and for XEmacs.

I see no connection between that and the issue.

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[Michael Albinus]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     > Maybe the Tramp web pages should go into the Emacs web pages.
>
>     I don't believe so. Tramp exists outside Emacs 21.3.50 as well, for
>     older Emacsen and for XEmacs.
>
> I see no connection between that and the issue.

The Tramp web pages contain parts which might be not desirable in the
Emacs web:

- There is a chapter about Tramp installation. Not needed if Tramp is
  inside Emacs; therefore this chapter is discarded when tramp.texi is
  uploaded to Emacs CVS.

- Tramp has different syntax for Emacs and XEmacs. I don't like it,
  but that's the status. Therefore, there are TWO web pages for Tramp,
  each linked to the other.

I guess both reasons make it reasonable to have Tramp web pages
outside Emacs.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[David Kastrup]

Michael Albinus <Michael.Albinus@alcatel.de> writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >     > Maybe the Tramp web pages should go into the Emacs web pages.
> >
> >     I don't believe so. Tramp exists outside Emacs 21.3.50 as well, for
> >     older Emacsen and for XEmacs.
> >
> > I see no connection between that and the issue.
> 
> The Tramp web pages contain parts which might be not desirable in
> the Emacs web:
> 
> - There is a chapter about Tramp installation. Not needed if Tramp
>   is inside Emacs; therefore this chapter is discarded when
>   tramp.texi is uploaded to Emacs CVS.

That explains why tramp has its own CVS apart from what is in Emacs.

> - Tramp has different syntax for Emacs and XEmacs. I don't like it,
>   but that's the status. Therefore, there are TWO web pages for
>   Tramp, each linked to the other.

Two _web_ pages or two _info_ pages?

> I guess both reasons make it reasonable to have Tramp web pages
> outside Emacs.

There is nothing to be said against having Tramp web pages out of
Emacs.  Since tramp is integrated with Emacs, one should also take a
look at how to integrate documentation to it.  But as long as tramp
is also a separate project, the focus of interest it has as a
separate project should certainly also be documented separately.

What I was originally asking was why tramp is not a GNU project,
which is surprising when you see it also as a part of Emacs and (c)
FSF.  There would be some valid answers:

a) tramp explicitly condones nonfree software.  I don't see this here
(and nonfree is not the same as non-GNU, or non-GPL).

b) there are parts of tramp that are problematic to be distributed by
the FSF, perhaps related to encryption or something.  But then the
issue is not GNU or non-GNU, but the distribution by the FSF.  If we
have a problem in that area (which I certainly don't hope), nothing
will help except ripping tramp from Emacs and all servers in the
U.S., and have it copyrighted and distributed by someone outside of
U.S.A. and the FSF.

There might be other reasons I overlook.  I just mentioned that it is
surprising for people looking for information about tramp that it
is categorized as non-GNU instead of GNU.  There might be reasons for
this, and it is ok if there are, but maybe it is only a historical
accident.  If that is all that is there, then one could correct it.
If there is more to it, then one can leave things as they are.

I have no clue.  That's why I was asking.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[Michael Albinus]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

>> - Tramp has different syntax for Emacs and XEmacs. I don't like it,
>>   but that's the status. Therefore, there are TWO web pages for
>>   Tramp, each linked to the other.
>
> Two _web_ pages or two _info_ pages?

Two _web_ pages. One _info_ page, but the syntax described differs wrt
the Emacs flavor detected during Tramp configure.

> There is nothing to be said against having Tramp web pages out of
> Emacs.  Since tramp is integrated with Emacs, one should also take a
> look at how to integrate documentation to it.  But as long as tramp
> is also a separate project, the focus of interest it has as a
> separate project should certainly also be documented separately.

>From tramp.texi uploaded to Emacs CVS one could generate a web page,
of course. But it has less contents, and should be used only for
references from Emacs web pages.

> What I was originally asking was why tramp is not a GNU project,
> which is surprising when you see it also as a part of Emacs and (c)
> FSF.  There would be some valid answers:

In fact I can guess the answer only because moving Tramp to savannah
happened before I have been involved.

> a) tramp explicitly condones nonfree software.  I don't see this here
> (and nonfree is not the same as non-GNU, or non-GPL).

It doesn't AFAIK.

> b) there are parts of tramp that are problematic to be distributed by
> the FSF, perhaps related to encryption or something.  But then the
> issue is not GNU or non-GNU, but the distribution by the FSF.  If we
> have a problem in that area (which I certainly don't hope), nothing
> will help except ripping tramp from Emacs and all servers in the
> U.S., and have it copyrighted and distributed by someone outside of
> U.S.A. and the FSF.

Here I'm not sure because I don't know regulations of used
packages. Tramp uses ssh, samba, ftp as external packages. None of them
should be regulated. There's no encryption, just encoding/decoding
(mimencode, uuencode) which shouldn't be a problem.

The most likely answer is "it just happened".

Best regards, Michael.

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[Kai Grossjohann]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> What I was originally asking was why tramp is not a GNU project,
> which is surprising when you see it also as a part of Emacs and (c)
> FSF.

As far as I can remember, I kind of felt that Emacs being a GNU
project doesn't automatically mean that parts of Emacs are also GNU
projects.

But maybe that is the case.

I certainly don't have anything against Tramp being a GNU project!
Quite on the contrary.

It seems that people are urging Tramp to become a GNU project.  How to
go about effecting this?

Kai

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[David Kastrup]

Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > What I was originally asking was why tramp is not a GNU project,
> > which is surprising when you see it also as a part of Emacs and (c)
> > FSF.
> 
> As far as I can remember, I kind of felt that Emacs being a GNU
> project doesn't automatically mean that parts of Emacs are also GNU
> projects.

That does not make sense.  The only thing you could say that a project
that (among other goals) provides an integral part of Emacs as one of
its aims need not in itself be a GNU project.

For example, GhostScript development is, in its totality, certainly
not a GNU project, even though it also provides GNU GhostScript.

And there are licensing and other reasons and non-GNU development why
this is so.

I don't see such reasons for Tramp, so it just seemed a bit
misleading to me.

> But maybe that is the case.
> 
> I certainly don't have anything against Tramp being a GNU project!
> Quite on the contrary.
> 
> It seems that people are urging Tramp to become a GNU project.

Don't confuse me with "people".  I don't think I have seen anybody
else bother or even notice much.

> How to go about effecting this?

It is, among other things, a political thing.  Some people tend to
dislike bothering about such stuff.

I recommend that you read
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_toc.html>.  That will tell you
all about what this would imply.

If you need hosting (I don't know what parts of Tramp might be
maintained elsewhere), you can ask for it at
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/devel.html>.

Basically, the end decision rests with RMS.  But for an
FSF-copyrighted package distributed as part of Emacs I don't see much
of a problem, really.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Pages of the Tramp package.

[Richard Stallman]

    The Tramp web pages contain parts which might be not desirable in the
    Emacs web:

Thank you.  I agree those things are not needed in the Emacs web pages.