Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs

[sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])]

>>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

RMS> Since we cannot use the code in XEmacs for lack of legal papers from
RMS> the authors (and even records about who the authors were), there is
RMS> not much possibility for cooperation with you to be useful for
RMS> us.

This is an unsubstantiated claim, and it doesn't get better with
repetition---many XEmacs maintainers have signed papers (including
myself), and if you have questions about authorship, you need only
ask.  I'll admit there are probably murky areas, but these are not
everywhere.  We'll try to oblige---why don't you try it out?

RMS> I don't see sense in helping you design changes to code we can't
RMS> use anyway.

Well, as a sign of goodwill, many XEmacs developers have written and
maintained code which are available for GNU Emacs as well---as vice
versa.  If we adopted your viewpoint, then you're obviously saying we
should stop doing this since this is really code we can't use anyway
either.

RMS> In order for code to be available to you and to us, it has to start
RMS> from the code in Emacs (or else from zero).  

In fact, you just asked me to assist in bringing over code I wrote
from XEmacs to GNU Emacs.  Where's the availability problem?

If you personally would like to abstain from any cooperation, that's
your right.  It's just an offer of goodwill.  I hope other GNU Emacs
developers will continue to cooperate in good spirit, as they have
done in the past.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla