Re: reftex needs to be upgraded.

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: That's because you haven't heard anybody else's opinion: I have stated the problem just on this list, and the developers leave it to you to bluster your way out of any licensing problem. So you make it appear basically as sort of a standoff between the two of us: nobody but you claims that XEmacs packages are including all of the corresponding source required for building them, according to the letter and spirit of the GPL. The problem is that making it appear like a standoff does not help in addressing the problem: if anybody tries solving what actually is a technical problem in a technical way, he would appear as opposing you as the project leader. If you prefer getting a more authoritive opinion from the FSF copyright clerk, I can certainly inquire there. Of course, you'll picture a potentially unfavorable result as some sort of David and/or GNU vendetta specifically aimed at XEmacs. It is a bit hard to phrase an appropriate reply since you are vacillating between various excuses (I'll take the GPLv3 language here since the "bluster our way out of this" approach will most likely continue through the GPLv3 licensing. Since the GPLv3 provisions are even more lenient where different, this does not actually invalidate the point I am making). a) The GPL language of The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. somehow does not apply to all the source needed to generate a particular XEmacs package file, specifically not the scripts controlling this activity. Note that I am not talking about the generic XEmacs package build system here (which I regard as an independent work), but the package-specific control files, like XEmacs.rules (IIRC). b) The GPL language of d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. somehow implies that sticking the files on some CVS server without public access and without announcement in packages or elsewhere is supposed to constitute "equivalent access" to packages widely distributed via different channels: ftp, disks, Linux distributions, XEmacs mirrors and so on. Your recent The GPL doesn't require that Debian distribute debian/rules with every .deb built from GPL sources, and it doesn't require us to distribute XEmacs.rules with every -pkg.tar.gz. diatribe can be sorted in either category, depending on whether you want to ignore the parallel distribution of Debian source packages (which include debian/rules) or claim that a single semi-private CVS server constitutes "equivalent access". I can't give up a fight I am not participating in. As long as you consider everybody reporting and explaining a problem (whether legal or technical) an enemy, you'll never run out of either untackled problems or enemies. And if your friends fail to tell you when you are wrong and help you address a problem, that lot remains with the enemies. I don't care which camp you want to group me with. What I do care about is that problems get addressed. And not by badmouthing the messenger and misrepresenting the message. As long as you keep doing that here with regard to reports of mine, expect that I keep correcting you. You don't have a monopoly on boneheadedness. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta