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. I'd rather see that the FAQ stops using the term FSF Emacs - as rms disapproves of this name. 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. 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? Those interested may look up this article: <199608292029.QAA01520(a)ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu&gt; Dejanews message-id search: <URL:http://www.dejanews.com/forms/mid.shtml> -- Christian Nybø