XEmacs FAQ Maintainer <faq(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: YES! The use of the word "Emacs" as applying exclusively to FSFmacs is being pushed by Stallman to assert his implementation as the rightful ("standard") one. Emacs is much older than either implementation, and has been used for things having to do with none. XEmacs sources use the generic "Emacs" frequently, such as "Emacs events" vs. "X events", etc. Stallman disapproves of XEmacs. Stallman hates what we do because he sees us as harming him. No amount of argumentation or goodwill will ever change that, and believe me, I tried! I suggest "GNU Emacs" as a neutral name. But Stallman disapproves of that name too (but only when *we* use it -- he uses it all the time.) How unusual. It's both, really. The crux of Stallman's argument is that XEmacs harms the GNU project because of competing with a GNU product [FSF Emacs], that competition being unfair because he can't use (most of) XEmacs code. Anyone with a grain of salt in his head can see through that -- if that were true, then Zsh would be "unfair competition" against Bash, and GNU should shun it. And the same for any free project that duplicates functionality provided by a GNU program. If took seriously, Stallman's logical argument would amount to "either you're with us or you're against us." And yet Stallman is not like that in other cases, so it's obvious that his reasons are of a more personal nature. Yes. I've signed my papers in the interests of peace. I don't think I would do that today, given the chance.