| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GFDL does not...GFDL does not...Posted Mar 5, 2005 18:46 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: GFDL does not... by dvdeug Parent article: A day in the life of emacs
When one assigns blame for a failure to cooperate, it's all about perception of fairness. RMS clearly believes that, over the past 10 years, FSF has contributed enough to the cooperation (the Emacs code and license, I presume) that it's only fair for Xemacs folks to contribute copyright assignments. Apparently he also believes that such copyright assignments would be fair exchange for the documentation license Xemacs is requesting now. So refusing the documentation license isn't hypocritical; it's all part of the same failure to cooperate, and the fact that RMS isn't willing to contribute even more to the cooperation doesn't mean Xemacs is any less at fault for the lack of cooperation.
(Log in to post comments)
GFDL does not... Posted Mar 7, 2005 6:19 UTC (Mon) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] Xemacs pulled out because RMS wanted to be lead dictator in Emacs. Efforts at reconciliation have failed because RMS wants the successor to be 100% compatible with Emacs, even though it's not possible to be 100% compatible with both and XEmacs is better designed in some of those places. Copyright assignment is a pain in the ass, but there's no evidence that if FSF asked for something specific from XEmacs, like XEmacs people have done here, that they wouldn't assign the rights. The FSF certainly has the right to use the code without an assignment. Honestly, the FSF has provided code under the GPL, and so have the XEmacs people; why are the XEmacs people not cooperating because they aren't copyright assigning their work to the FSF, when the reverse isn't happening? the fact that RMS isn't willing to contribute even more to the cooperation doesn't mean Xemacs is any less at fault for the lack of cooperation. I find the concept that it's all XEmacs fault for not cooperating to be nonsense. The XEmacs people have a number of complaints about when RMS wouldn't cooperate.
GFDL does not... Posted Mar 9, 2005 11:42 UTC (Wed) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] Those of you who want to read the ``other point of view'' to this biased opinion that it's all XEmacs' fault: Please have a look at http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html. The author tries hard to give credit to both sides, much to the disdain of jwz.
Speaking of him, if you want to read an additional (very strongly biased) view of the Emacs/XEmacs chism, you can also check out Jamie Zawinsky's Web Site http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html where you can even read the emails of RMS and of Richard Gabriel. IMHO it clearly shows that it's both sides faults.
Joachim
GFDL does not... Posted Mar 10, 2005 7:13 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] This is the second comment that has referred to a concept that "it's all Xemacs' fault," but I don't find that that position actually shows up anywhere in the article or the comments or the article's references.All I see is a statement by RMS that Xemacs refused to cooperate. As I pointed out above, that's a nonsense statement -- cooperation isn't something that one party does. So he's probably talking about fairness. But even then, it's a leap from believing the Xemacs people are being unfair to believing that they are 100% at fault for there being two versions of Emacs (assuming that's a fault at all).
GFDL does not... Posted Mar 10, 2005 8:21 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] You wrote: ``the fact that RMS isn't willing to contribute even more to the cooperation doesn't mean Xemacs is any less at fault for the lack of cooperation.'' (emphasis by me). This was the reaction to the point of dvdeug who wrote ``I tend to look askance on any claim that all failures to cooperate in the past have been XEmacs's fault.'' With your statement, you made a contradiction to his scepsis and thus supported the concept that the chism is XEmacs's fault.``any less at fault'' as an answer to ``all failures ... have been XEmacs's fault'' is quite clearly a position, isn't it? And I reacted exactly to that position. Joachim
GFDL does not... Posted Mar 10, 2005 21:23 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] "not any less at fault" is fundamentally different from "completely at fault" or even "somewhat at fault." In fact, I have reserved judgment on who, if anyone is at fault and how much.dvdeug said something else besides that he looks askance at this claim by RMS; he gave the reason -- that RMS is today doing the same thing he accuses Xemacs of doing in the past. All I said is that the reason is wrong -- RMS's refusal to give the documentation license doesn't absolve Xemacs of any fault it might have. dvdeug then added some different reasons to point the finger away from Xemacs and at RMS.
|
|
||||||||||||