Hrvoje> Could you please change `Emacs' to `FSF Emacs' or `GNU Hrvoje> Emacs'? XEmacs is just as much Emacs as is FSF Emacs. Just like Pepsi-Cola is just as much cola as Coca-Cola is, it seems to me. Imagine Coke taking a position analogous to Stallman's.... ms> Note that what Hrovje suggests will alienate RMS should he ms> ever see it (both alternatives). He told me he either wants ms> people, when using "GNU Emacs", to also call XEmacs "GNU ms> XEmacs". It's true that there is a difference, at least in theory, between the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation. But it seems to me that "GNU XEmacs" would be distributed by, or at least have an XEmacs.README on, GNU mirrors. The fact that it's not so is surely not an accident. This makes me sad. But there will remain the fact of the fundamental unity of the two development streams, which deserves a common name, and the fact of important differences[1], which deserve separate but equal names. Unless Stallman takes action to have the "Emacs" removed from "XEmacs"[2] (which will make him look pretty schizophrenic, given the copyright notice in every file of the XEmacs distribution), it's silly to do anything but "Something-Emacs" and "SomethingElse-Emacs". It would be nice if Stallman would recognize this and choose something he likes (even if it was "The One True Emacs"), but I don't think that's going to happen. Footnotes: [1] Which are a (qualified) good thing, providing more choice to the community. [2] I doubt that this is legally possible under the GPL. However, I personally would like to try to respect Stallman's wishes in that case. Of course, I also think it unlikely that Stallman would try it.