Re: OK, I'm curious now

G> Folks, G> I just read the "GNU vs. XEmacs" page G> http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html. G> I confess, I rarely use emacs any more, as many of the systems I G> remotely log into don't have it, and I just got used to using Vim or the G> original vi, whichever is available. Since I don't use it regularly, G> most of the key mappings have been forgotten (except the ubiquitous ones G> like ^P, ^N, etc.) I note most distributions of linux include G> GNU Emacs, not XEmacs. However from this page, I surmise that XEmacs is G> nicer for workstation use. But I'm so used to vim now... G> It is not noted on the page whether the FSF position statement was G> written with the XEmacs position in mind. So the following is not G> necessarily a correct presumption: It appears that RMS complaints about G> XEmacs have more to do with licensing issues than design. If so, G> couldn't this be accommodated by the XEmacs gang? Unless those folks G> have completely faded away. The membership of the XEmacs development team has changed over time. Some of the developers feel it is unfair to be required to assign the copyright to _their_ work to the FSF. Other developers are large corporations with busy lawyers and no benefit from copyright assignment.