Re: reftex needs to be upgraded.
Uwe Brauer writes:
Right I would like to clarifying this as well
- auctex is still released under under v2 (or later): do I
understand correctly, even if the auctex would be willing to
release reftex under the v2 they could not.
I didn't realize that; you should check exactly what the licensing of
reftex is, then. If it's not v3, we're definitely OK.
If it is v3, we may still be OK, but the problem is that packages are
useless without XEmacs (I wouldn't claim that we're distributing them
so that GNU Emacs can use them), and Richard Stallman has made claims
that I understand to mean that makes them "part" of XEmacs.
Your reftex pkg is
"somehow" different from the old still, we could under now
circumstances release it under v2 or later. The GPL is so
infectious and global?
Nobody knows, because no court has ruled on it. Richard says "yes"
(except that he'd whack you with a piece of lead pipe for using a
disease metaphor), Larry Rosen says "no". I trust Larry more than I
trust Eben Moglen, who backs up Richard. But Richard gets his
lawyer's court time for free, we would have to pay for ours. He
doesn't hesitate to use the threat of imposing litigation costs to get
his way, either.
These are the same question who came into my mind.
See my reply to Mats. I think the ONLY thing that relicensing a
package forces to be relicensed is a SUMO. We don't need to relicense
the package infrastructure[1], we don't need to relicense XEmacs core. I
don't have time to go into detail, but I have a comment from RMS on a
related issue that leads me to believe that is true.
Footnotes:
[1] Subject to David Kastrup's claim that the package infrastructure
is the "scripts used to build the executable code". I disagree with
that but need to ask a lawyer.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta