Re: Why Haven't XEmacs and GNU Emacs Merged?
XEmacs FAQ Maintainer <faq(a)xemacs.org> writes:
As a result from a posting in texinfo-bug, I had an email
conversation with rms, who was interested in what the FAQ said on
Emacs/XEmacs indifferences. Now I'd like to know whether the XEmacs
developers have anything against med using the term Emacs to denote
the version of emacs currently maintained by rms and others, XEmacs
about our version, and emacs when talking about emacs as a concept
or class of application.
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.
I'd rather see that the FAQ stops using the term FSF Emacs - as
rms
disapproves of this name.
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.
While I used to think that the current split is a result of
technical discord, rms's view is that it's a matter of getting all
authors of XEmacs to sign the legal papers regarding the GPL.
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.
Even though it may be reasonable to maintain two emacs development
efforts, it'd still be worthwhile to get the legal papers signed,
wouldn't it?
Yes. I've signed my papers in the interests of peace. I don't think
I would do that today, given the chance.