August 1999 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: kde-xemacs or gnome-xemacs? 26 years

William M. Perry

Glynn Clements <glynn(a)sensei.co.uk> writes: [...] >The point is that you're supposed to be able to rebuild the executable >using only GPL'd sources. Well, freely available sources. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to use LGPL'd libraries. :) There's also a section in the GPL about: ---------- These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. ---------- So you could make lwlib a shared library, or 'pluggable' and you could just open the shared library at runtime and get all the function pointers out, and not violate the GPL. In theory. Someone is just writing to a well-published API (similar to GTK+ theme shared libraries). As long as the header files for the lwlib interface did not suck so badly as to require anybody that included them to use a GPL license, this should be fine. [...] > In any case, Lesstif is GPL'd. Even if it isn't yet as reliable as a real > Motif, it should at least allow you to build a Motif-enabled executable. Yes, but there was a 'qt-alike' toolkit that people were working on that would be GPL'd. Perhaps those header files could be resurrected, or a minimal functional equivalent could be done, but that would suck. Similar to the hooplah about the GNU bignum library that RIPEM wanted to use way back when. -bp -- William M. Perry <wmperry(a)gnu.org> You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Gutter, add-tab-to-gutter and extent-info 26 years

Mike McEwan

Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes: > Incidentally, how can one get rid of this tab thingy? I already have > the toolbar removed, it's not in order to add that :/ I'm using: (set-specifier default-gutter-visible-p nil) (setq gutter-visible-p nil) in my ~/.emacs. -- Mike.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Building XEmacs 21.1.6 with SunOS 4.1.3's bundled X11 26 years

Alexandre Oliva

On Aug 21, 1999, Gunnar Evermann <ge204(a)eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva <oliva(a)dcc.unicamp.br> writes: >> On Aug 20, 1999, Gunnar Evermann <ge204(a)eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> > but shouldn't we include "syssignal.h" instead? >> >> If you mean sys/signal.h, it will work on SunOS4 too, but I can't tell >> for other systems. > I meant the syssignal.h distributed with XEmacs. Ah, sorry. If it includes signal.h, it should do. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva IC-Unicamp, Bra[sz]il oliva(a){dcc.unicamp.br,guarana.{org,com}} aoliva(a){acm.org,computer.org} oliva(a){gnu.org,kaffe.org,{egcs,sourceware}.cygnus.com,samba.org} ** I may forward mail about projects to mailing lists; please use them

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Building XEmacs 21.1.6 with SunOS 4.1.3's bundled X11 26 years

Gunnar Evermann

Alexandre Oliva <oliva(a)dcc.unicamp.br> writes: > On Aug 20, 1999, Gunnar Evermann <ge204(a)eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > but shouldn't we include "syssignal.h" instead? > > If you mean sys/signal.h, it will work on SunOS4 too, but I can't tell > for other systems. I meant the syssignal.h distributed with XEmacs. Gunnar

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Building XEmacs 21.1.6 with SunOS 4.1.3's bundled X11 26 years

Alexandre Oliva

On Aug 20, 1999, Gunnar Evermann <ge204(a)eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva <oliva(a)dcc.unicamp.br> writes: >> For src/ChangeLog >> from Alexandre Oliva <oliva(a)dcc.unicamp.br> >> >> * tooltalk.c: Include signal.h, needed for struct sigaction on >> SunOS 4.1.3. > Oh, sorry, I hadn't checked when adding the sigaction stuff. > but shouldn't we include "syssignal.h" instead? If you mean sys/signal.h, it will work on SunOS4 too, but I can't tell for other systems. You may also want to test if the header file exists in configure. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva IC-Unicamp, Bra[sz]il oliva(a){dcc.unicamp.br,guarana.{org,com}} aoliva(a){acm.org,computer.org} oliva(a){gnu.org,kaffe.org,{egcs,sourceware}.cygnus.com,samba.org} ** I may forward mail about projects to mailing lists; please use them

1 participants
0 comments

Re: kde-xemacs or gnome-xemacs? 26 years

Justin Vallon

Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes: > On Sat, Aug 21, 1999 at 12:43:47AM -0400, Justin Vallon wrote: > > Statically linking, you mean. > > No, I don't. Copyright law does not make any distinction between > static and dynamic linking when it comes to defining derivative works. However, you clearly cannot distribute statically linked binaries. By distributing a dynamically linked binary, you are not allowing the end-user to use any of the Qt library that they have not installed themselves. I would hope that GPL-type licenses allow distribution of dynamically linked executables. > > Am I not allowed to create dynamically > > linked Qt applications? What would be the point of the library if it > > can't be used as a library? > > What does that have to do with a Qt-XEmacs ? The point is whether an xemacs binary linked against Qt (dynamically) can be (legally) distributed to the end-user, or whether that end-user needs to compile xemacs from source to be allowed to use Qt. -- -Justin vallon(a)mindspring.com

2 participants
1 comments

Re: kde-xemacs or gnome-xemacs? 26 years

Justin Vallon

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes: > Chris Woods <cjwoods(a)mediaone.net> writes: > > > OK, I'm donning my asbestos underwear. Forgive my blunt approach: > > > > Why does RMS have to sanction everything? > > Because, like it or not, he owns the copyright to the majority of > the code. Therefore his interpretation of the licence matters. Even if > that interpretation turns out to be completely bogus, he still can do > a lot of harm if he so wishes. > > It sure is a flaw of the GPL that it cannot cooperate well with other > Free/Open Source/whatever licenses, but that doesn't change the fact > XEmacs is under the GPL. I thought the point of the code being under GPL is that nobody (not even RMS) can tell you (or anybody) how that code is used, so long as you don't sell the product, make the source available, etc. -- -Justin vallon(a)mindspring.com

2 participants
1 comments

Re: kde-xemacs or gnome-xemacs? 26 years

Justin Vallon

Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes: > On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 09:46:09PM -0400, Chris Woods wrote: > > Olivier Galibert wrote: > > > Because the FSF has copyright over a huge part of the XEmacs codebase. > > Is it not under the GPL? > > It is. That's why the opinion of the FSF (aka, RMS' opinion) about > how to interpret the GPL w.r.t Motif and Qt is important for us. > > IMNSHO, linking with motif or Qt is illegal. But in that particular > case, the FSF (i.e, RMS) explicitely said that they won't sue. They > also explicitely said in Qt's case that they _will_ sue. Statically linking, you mean. Am I not allowed to create dynamically linked Qt applications? What would be the point of the library if it can't be used as a library? -- -Justin vallon(a)mindspring.com

2 participants
1 comments

Re: kde-xemacs or gnome-xemacs? 26 years

Jan Vroonhof

Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> writes: > We already allow XEmacs to link against vendor provided non-free > libraries. Motif, for instance. What's the difference? Motif is an RMS sanctioned "system library". I have nothing against linking with QT. I am simply not prepared to take any heat from the FSF for something simple as looks. Jan

4 participants
8 comments

Re: kde-xemacs or gnome-xemacs? 26 years

Jan Vroonhof

Chris Woods <cjwoods(a)mediaone.net> writes: > OK, I'm donning my asbestos underwear. Forgive my blunt approach: > > Why does RMS have to sanction everything? Because, like it or not, he owns the copyright to the majority of the code. Therefore his interpretation of the licence matters. Even if that interpretation turns out to be completely bogus, he still can do a lot of harm if he so wishes. It sure is a flaw of the GPL that it cannot cooperate well with other Free/Open Source/whatever licenses, but that doesn't change the fact XEmacs is under the GPL. Jan

1 participants
0 comments

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

XEmacs-Beta August 1999