Re: [comp.emacs.xemacs] AUCTeX 11.84 released
Olivier Galibert wrote:
> But the preferred form for modification/development is not by
> hand-editing and handcompiling. They are in the XEmacs CVS package
> repository. This form is so much the preferred form for modification
> that you don't even _allow_ anything else into your package servers
> and the repository.
The XEmacs CVS package repository is the preferred form for the
sources for modification. Everybody has access to the XEmacs CVS
package repository. Pserver *is* a medium customarily used for
software interchange, as sourceforge proves. Other distribution
methods for the sources are just for convenience.
> Certainly. It says that you have to provide the complete, machine
> readable source code in the form preferred for modification. And if
> you don't provide it by default, the least is to do is to provide
> equivalent access from the same place. And a central CVS server is
> not the same place or equivalent access as scattered ftp mirrors.
I kinda doubt there is any significant legal difference between the
ftp and pserver protocols.
It's not clear that a CVS repository and an FTP server running on the
same host are even "the same place". And, AFAICT, cvs.xemacs.org and
ftp.xemacs.org aren't even on the same network.
Furthermore, when the code is available via an FTP mirror, who is
distributiing it? I.e. who is the "you" mentioned throughout the GPL?
The XEmacs developers, or the admin of the FTP server?
If it's the latter, they aren't providing anyone with access to the
CVS repository, so they need to provide the "complete source code".
IOW, even if ftp://ftp.xemacs.org and :pserver:cvs＠cvs.xemacs.org are
considered "the same place"[1] in the context of:
If distribution of executable or object code is made by
offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering
equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place
counts as distribution of the source code, even though third
parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the
object code.
other FTP mirrors arguably aren't "the same place". The issue is even
more acute for someone distributing CDs of what appears to be
freely-redistributable souce code taken from the FTP site.
BTW Stephen, is there any real reason not to include the two files
the
crybaby is having a fit over, even if they're pretty much unusable
outside of a CVS context from what I understand? They can have some
value as an example, I guess.
Given that the XEmacs "binary" packages are so close to being "the
complete source code" (they may even be so; IANAL, and, AFAIK, neither
is David), adding those files would mean that access to the CVS
repository should be a non-issue.
Personally, I'd suggest ensuring that one can rely solely upon the
argument that the binary packages really do consitute the complete
source code as defined by the GPL, without feeling any need to use the
"if it isn't, you can get the rest from CVS" argument.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn(a)gclements.plus.com>
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta