11:49 a.m.
Michael Albinus <michael.albinus(a)gmx.de> writes:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> Michael Sperber writes:
>
> > I suspect this statement arose from the fact that I wasn't responsive at
> > the time this came around. (Or did anyone actively speak about against
> > "unified filename syntax"?) For this, I apologize.
>
> Something like that.... I don't recall anyone speaking against it.
>
> +1 for unified syntax (even though rcp syntax sucks...).
I found a discussion about at
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta/16552/focus=14525>
Major concern was that EFS could be broken in package
management.
It seems to me both syntaxes could co-exist because of the added colon
in the unified syntax. Am I wrong?
There was also the suggestion that a unified syntax shall be closed
to
URL syntax; this would need an agreement with the GNU Emacs people.
I see it was discussed on xemacs-beta. Was there ever any progress on
the discussion with GNU Emacs?
But before we go into the discussion, the Tramp synchronization with
XEmacs shall be revitalised. Up to now it is stalled due to the GPLv3
issue - are there any news wrt this?
Yet one more issue I hadn't kept current on. While I dislike the v3
switch for the same reason Stephen has, I can't say I have any concrete
objection, either, and I can't find any statement in the mailing lists
that say anybody else does. (I may be wrong, though.)
Meanwhile, this message here:
http://www.sxemacs.org/list-archives/html/sxemacs-devel/2007-08/msg00003....
has this:
> While I appreciate that Tramp is separable from the rest of
XEmacs, they're
> not exactly completely independent works, either. As I understand it, if
> you take an XEmacs package that has Tramp bundled inside that, and then
> build and install that the normal way, XEmacs will automatically load Tramp
> on startup. To a user who wasn't familiar with the XEmacs architecture,
> there would be no reason to believe that the remote editing features were
> somehow separate from the rest of the editor. So, an XEmacs+Tramp
> distribution is not mere aggregation, but instead a combination, and you
> need to follow the terms of both programs' licenses to make that
> combination. In this case, the way to do that is to follow the terms of
> GPLv3, since that's what Tramp offers, and it's an option that's
available
> for the rest of XEmacs too.
Could we work around this by having Tramp not be auto-activated, but
requiring some explicit (require 'tramp) or (turn-on-tramp) or something?
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:32 p.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
Michael Sperber <sperber(a)deinprogramm.de> writes:
> Major concern was that EFS could be broken in package
> management.
It seems to me both syntaxes could co-exist because of the added colon
in the unified syntax. Am I wrong?
The "added colon" is optional. If you have set tramp-default-method,
you don't need a method specification in the file name, and the syntax
looks pretty like EFS.
> There was also the suggestion that a unified syntax shall be
closed to
> URL syntax; this would need an agreement with the GNU Emacs people.
I see it was discussed on xemacs-beta. Was there ever any progress on
the discussion with GNU Emacs?
That was before my time with Tramp. That means, more than 5 years ago.
Yet one more issue I hadn't kept current on. While I dislike the
v3
switch for the same reason Stephen has, I can't say I have any concrete
objection, either, and I can't find any statement in the mailing lists
that say anybody else does. (I may be wrong, though.)
Could we work around this by having Tramp not be auto-activated, but
requiring some explicit (require 'tramp) or (turn-on-tramp) or something?
Stephen did negotiate with the FSF licensing clerk. I'll let it to him
for continuation. And of course, I'll be happy to contribute latest
Tramp to XEmacs once this problem is solved.
Best regards, Michael.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:09 a.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
Michael Albinus <michael.albinus(a)gmx.de> writes:
Michael Sperber <sperber(a)deinprogramm.de> writes:
> Could we work around this by having Tramp not be auto-activated, but
> requiring some explicit (require 'tramp) or (turn-on-tramp) or
> something?
Stephen did negotiate with the FSF licensing clerk. I'll let it to him
for continuation. And of course, I'll be happy to contribute latest
Tramp to XEmacs once this problem is solved.
Uh Michael? As long as you are the only person responsible for
copyrightable changes after tramp got relicensed, you can contribute
whatever you want under the previous license.
If few others have contributed (and done this under a working copyright
assignment to the FSF), you need to ask them. They are free to permit
you redistribution under the old terms, too.
It is a different question, however, whether it makes sense at all for
some project to go to all this hassle when XEmacs is likely going to
move to GPLv3 eventually, anyway.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:20 p.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> writes:
Uh Michael? As long as you are the only person responsible for
copyrightable changes after tramp got relicensed, you can contribute
whatever you want under the previous license.
I still ask Kai for such changes, just for the records.
If few others have contributed (and done this under a working
copyright
assignment to the FSF), you need to ask them. They are free to permit
you redistribution under the old terms, too.
Yes, but I'm short in time. I do not want to distribute the same sources
twice under different license terms.
I also believe that Tramp 2.1 shall be the version in the XEmacs package
repository. Tramp 2.0 is said to see security updates only (although I
break this rule again and again :-) And Tramp 2.1 does not exist in a
GPLv2 version I'ld like to maintain.
It is a different question, however, whether it makes sense at all
for
some project to go to all this hassle when XEmacs is likely going to
move to GPLv3 eventually, anyway.
It looks promising now.
Best regards, Michael.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:51 p.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
David Kastrup writes:
It is a different question, however, whether it makes sense at all
for
some project to go to all this hassle when XEmacs is likely going to
move to GPLv3 eventually, anyway.
This will happen soon, I think.
The two things that need to be done are (1) to make sure that the code
covered is all under the "GPLv2 or later" language, and (2) to confer
with the SXEmacs guys since they share our package distribution. (1)
has been done already, I think, by Mats Lidell, but needs to be
verified, and (2) won't take long.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:14 p.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
>>>> Stephen wrote:
Stephen> (1) has been done already, I think, by Mats Lidell, but needs
Stephen> to be verified,
Well what I have done is a script that analyses files in a folder
recursively. If they contain some variations of the "GPLv2 or later"
string they are marked as GPLV2. All the rest is marked with a
question mark. It is really a very simple and naive thing but seems to
find a lot of files.
These later files, marked with question marks, needs to be checked
manually for their legal status.
The script also tries to be smart about files that can be safely
ignored. These assumptions needs to be verified too of course.
I haven't checked in the script. I uploaded it to my web site for
feedback. You can have a look at it again! Direct your browser to:
"http://lidell.homelinux.net/~matsl/xemacs/gplv3/"
You'll find both the script and the output (at that time) there. Note:
The script doesn't know about mercurial.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:40 p.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
Hi Mats,
On Jan 6, 2008 9:14 AM, Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Well what I have done is a script that analyses files in a folder
recursively. If they contain some variations of the "GPLv2 or later"
string they are marked as GPLV2. All the rest is marked with a
question mark. It is really a very simple and naive thing but seems to
find a lot of files.
These later files, marked with question marks, needs to be checked
manually for their legal status.
The script also tries to be smart about files that can be safely
ignored. These assumptions needs to be verified too of course.
I haven't checked in the script. I uploaded it to my web site for
feedback. You can have a look at it again! Direct your browser to:
"http://lidell.homelinux.net/~matsl/xemacs/gplv3/"
You'll find both the script and the output (at that time) there. Note:
The script doesn't know about mercurial.
I've made a few modifications to the script, FWIW. I've attached a
patch to this message. I believe the changes are fairly
self-explanatory, but tell me if they are not.
I've checked the files on the list produced by this script. Here are
what appear to me to be the trouble spots, after removing generated
files and files with BSD or MIT licenses from the list.
1) The C code in Steve Baur's postgresql module (postgresql.c and postgresql.h)
does not give any license information.
2) The sample modules (modules/sample) have no clear license. I am fine with
distributing the parts I have written under GPLv3. J. Kean
Johnston wrote the
rest. He's also the author of the unlicensed top-level aclocal.m4.
3) The .texi files we have authored (i.e., those not synced from Emacs) are
almost universally lacking any license information.
4) The .texi files we have synced from Emacs are not licensed under the GPL,
and likewise the top-level INSTALL file.
5) There is no license information anywhere in nt/installer, which also appears
to be woefully out of date.
6) The Windows build files are mostly devoid of any license information (i.e.,
the top-level build-msw-release.sh file and the contents of the nt
directory).
7) Some lwlib files are lacking license information, namely: lwlib.h,
lwlib-internal.h, lwlib-utils.h, lwlib-Xaw.c, lwlib-Xaw.h, lwlib-Xlw.h,
lwlib-Xm.h, xlwmenu.h, and xlwmenuP.h.
8) Some lib-src files are lacking license information, namely: ad2c, b2m.c,
digest-doc.c, ellcc.h.in, emacs.csh, gnudepend.pl, hexl.c,
insert-data-in-exec.c, installexe.sh, leditcfns.c, make-msgfile.c,
make-po.c, rcs-checkin, sorted-doc.c, vcdiff, wakeup.c, and yow.c.
9) The following files refer to the GPL but do not specify a version and do
not contain the "or later" clause (i.e., they're probably GPLv1):
lib-src/gnuslib.c, lib-src/gnuserv.c, lib-src/gnuserv.h, src/malloc.c,
src/m/luna88k.h.
10) Many of the test files contain no license information. In fact, so many of
them are lacking that information that I'm not going to list them all here.
11) Stephen Turnbull: etc/bundled-packages/test.sh has no license info
12) A number of etc files are lacking license information: editclient.sh,
Emacs.ad, emacskeys.sco nor the uuencoded emap.c it contains,
emacsstrs.sco, gnuserv.1, gnuserv.README which should be chucked, gtkrc,
idd/drop, idd/dropmsk, InstallGuide, sample.Xresources,
tests/external-widget/* (and there is a broken reference to copyright info
in test-ew-xlib.c), and VEGETABLES.
13) The files in etc/unicode/ibm are copyright IBM, all rights reserved, with no
explicit information about a license.
14) The file etc/xemacs.1 needs an update (it refers to a versionless GPL).
15) We should probably replace the top-level install.sh with the autotools
version.
16) Lisp files lacking license information: cus-face.el, dumped-lisp.el,
gnome.el, gtk.el, gtk-compose.el, gtk-marshal.el, gtk-package.el,
gtk-widget-accessors.el, mule/mule-locale.txt, site-load.el (Steve Baur
wrote this), term/bobcat.el, term/vt102.el, term/vt125.el, term/vt200.el,
term/vt201.el, term/vt220.el, term/vt240.el, term/vt300.el, term/vt320.el,
term/vt400.el, term/vt420.el
17) A typo in lisp/mule/canna-leim.el ("... either versions 2...") prevented
the
script from recognizing that it is GPLv2 or later.
18) The top-level move-if-change script has no license info.
19) Some files in netinstall are lacking license info (we probably need to
resync with Cygwin anyway): iniparse.h, mklink2.c, reginfo.h,
resource.h, and version.pl.
20) Source files lacking license information: dgif_lib.c, gif_io.c, gifrlib.h,
glade.c, gtk-glue.c, gtk-xemacs.c, gtk-xemacs.h, hftctl.c, libsst.c,
libsst.h, libst.h, m/alliant1.h, m/alliant4.h, m/gould-np1.h, m/ibm370aix.h,
m/is386.h, m/mips4.h, m/ncr386.h, m/news-risc.h, m/paragon.h, m/pmax.h,
m/pyrmips.h, m/sgi3000.h, m/sun3.h, m/sun3-68881.h, m/sun3-fpa.h,
m/sun3-soft.h, m/tandem-s2.h, offix-cursors.h, paths.h.in,
ppc.ldscript, most
(but not all) of the files in the s directory, toolbar-common.h,
tooltalk.doc,
ui-byhand.c, ui-gtk.c, ui-gtk.h, unexencap.c
21) Lazy me. I never put the usual header where the comment says to in
src/xemacs.def.in.in. We'll just fix that right up in a jiffy....
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:42 p.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
On Jan 7, 2008 11:40 AM, Jerry James <james(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
I've made a few modifications to the script, FWIW. I've
attached a
patch to this message. I believe the changes are fairly
self-explanatory, but tell me if they are not.
Except that I didn't. I'm REALLY attaching the changes this time.
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:28 a.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
>>>> Jerry wrote:
Jerry> Except that I didn't. I'm REALLY attaching the changes this time.
Thanks for the patch. I have checked in the script in
xemacs-builds/matsl/gplv3 for easier referens.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:15 a.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
Thanks for following up, Jerry!
Jerry James writes:
1) The C code in Steve Baur's postgresql module (postgresql.c
and
postgresql.h) does not give any license information.
Not a problem, he signed assign.future, so those are FSF-owned. I
can't imagine they'll object. If he doesn't answer here, I'll be
buying him beer soon, so will get permission then.
2) The sample modules (modules/sample) have no clear license. I am
fine with distributing the parts I have written under GPLv3.
"Or later", right?
J. Kean Johnston wrote the rest. He's also the author of the
unlicensed top-level aclocal.m4.
Somebody had better ask him. That's a big contribution, and one that
RMS thinks shouldn't exist.
3) The .texi files we have authored (i.e., those not synced from
Emacs) are
almost universally lacking any license information.
Beta.texi is probably GPL v2 or later, since it came out of the Emacs
distribution and was translated from text/plain.
Other .texi files we should ask the authors about their intentions,
after deciding whether we might someday want to put them in one of the
main manuals.
4) The .texi files we have synced from Emacs are not licensed under
the GPL,
We should not be synching .texi from Emacs, period, since v21 at the
latest. We never got permission to relicense them from the
Generate-Forks-Documentation-License. They have their own license,
and I interpret them to be "merely aggregated". RMS doesn't consider
documentation to be "first class content," anyway.
and likewise the top-level INSTALL file.
Has its own license. In GNU it's GPLv3.
5) There is no license information anywhere in nt/installer, which
also appears to be woefully out of date.
Nuke it, I think.
6) The Windows build files are mostly devoid of any license
information
(i.e., the top-level build-msw-release.sh file and the contents of the
nt directory).
Probably Microsoft EULA? <gag> <coff> <a.out>
7) Some lwlib files are lacking license information, namely:
lwlib.h,
lwlib-internal.h, lwlib-utils.h, lwlib-Xaw.c, lwlib-Xaw.h, lwlib-Xlw.h,
lwlib-Xm.h, xlwmenu.h, and xlwmenuP.h.
Ouch. The approach in (8) sort of applies, but many of these will
vary dramatically from GNU versions.
8) Some lib-src files are lacking license information, namely: ad2c,
b2m.c,
digest-doc.c, ellcc.h.in, emacs.csh, gnudepend.pl, hexl.c,
insert-data-in-exec.c, installexe.sh, leditcfns.c, make-msgfile.c,
make-po.c, rcs-checkin, sorted-doc.c, vcdiff, wakeup.c, and yow.c.
We can check in the Emacs distribution. If they're *very* similar
then somebody can write down the important differences, we sync from
Emacs, a second somebody fixes 'em up, and we're done.
9) The following files refer to the GPL but do not specify a version
and do
not contain the "or later" clause (i.e., they're probably GPLv1):
No. That is defined by the GPL itself to mean any version ever
published. See clause 9 in COPYING. We can and should fix them.
lib-src/gnuslib.c, lib-src/gnuserv.c, lib-src/gnuserv.h,
src/malloc.c,
src/m/luna88k.h.
10) Many of the test files contain no license information. In fact,
so many of them are lacking that information that I'm not going
to list them all here.
Interesting. I'll have to take a look at cvs blame and at the
ChangeLog, but I think these are OK.
11) Stephen Turnbull: etc/bundled-packages/test.sh has no license
info
I'll fix that.
12) A number of etc files are lacking license information:
editclient.sh,
Emacs.ad, emacskeys.sco nor the uuencoded emap.c it contains,
emacsstrs.sco, gnuserv.1, gnuserv.README which should be chucked, gtkrc,
idd/drop, idd/dropmsk, InstallGuide, sample.Xresources,
tests/external-widget/* (and there is a broken reference to copyright
info in test-ew-xlib.c), and VEGETABLES.
VEGETABLES is not copyrightable, I'm pretty sure, except as part of
the whole compilation of XEmacs.
13) The files in etc/unicode/ibm are copyright IBM, all rights
reserved,
with no explicit information about a license.
I'll check and see if we can get them from the Unicode Consortium.
14) The file etc/xemacs.1 needs an update (it refers to a versionless
GPL).
See (9).
15) We should probably replace the top-level install.sh with the
autotools
version.
OK.
16) Lisp files lacking license information: cus-face.el,
dumped-lisp.el,
gnome.el, gtk.el, gtk-compose.el, gtk-marshal.el, gtk-package.el,
gtk-widget-accessors.el, mule/mule-locale.txt, site-load.el (Steve Baur
wrote this), term/bobcat.el, term/vt102.el, term/vt125.el, term/vt200.el,
term/vt201.el, term/vt220.el, term/vt240.el, term/vt300.el, term/vt320.el,
term/vt400.el, term/vt420.el
17) A typo in lisp/mule/canna-leim.el ("... either versions 2...") prevented
the script from recognizing that it is GPLv2 or later.
Heh.
18) The top-level move-if-change script has no license info.
See 15.
19) Some files in netinstall are lacking license info (we probably
need to
resync with Cygwin anyway): iniparse.h, mklink2.c, reginfo.h,
resource.h, and version.pl.
Resync, yes, but I think we can assume they are under GPLv2 or later
since the whole shebang is.
20) Source files lacking license information: dgif_lib.c, gif_io.c,
gifrlib.h,
glade.c, gtk-glue.c, gtk-xemacs.c, gtk-xemacs.h, hftctl.c, libsst.c,
libsst.h, libst.h, m/alliant1.h, m/alliant4.h, m/gould-np1.h, m/ibm370aix.h,
m/is386.h, m/mips4.h, m/ncr386.h, m/news-risc.h, m/paragon.h, m/pmax.h,
m/pyrmips.h, m/sgi3000.h, m/sun3.h, m/sun3-68881.h, m/sun3-fpa.h,
m/sun3-soft.h, m/tandem-s2.h, offix-cursors.h, paths.h.in, ppc.ldscript,
most (but not all) of the files in the s directory, toolbar-common.h,
tooltalk.doc, ui-byhand.c, ui-gtk.c, ui-gtk.h, unexencap.c
toolbar-common.h was extracted from toolbar.c at some point. It's
probably OK. If there are *any* GTK files from the Bill Perry era
with a proper permissions notice, I'm comfortable assuming he meant to
put them all under GPL.
21) Lazy me. I never put the usual header where the comment says to
in
src/xemacs.def.in.in. We'll just fix that right up in a jiffy....
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:35 p.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
On Jan 7, 2008 11:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Thanks for following up, Jerry!
Jerry James writes:
[snip]
> 2) The sample modules (modules/sample) have no clear license.
I am
> fine with distributing the parts I have written under GPLv3.
"Or later", right?
Right.
> J. Kean Johnston wrote the rest. He's also the author
of the
> unlicensed top-level aclocal.m4.
Somebody had better ask him. That's a big contribution, and one that
RMS thinks shouldn't exist.
I'll ask him, assuming I can find a valid email address for him.
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:06 a.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
Jerry James writes:
> "Or later", right?
Right.
> > J. Kean Johnston wrote the rest. He's also the author of the
> > unlicensed top-level aclocal.m4.
>
> Somebody had better ask him. That's a big contribution, and one that
> RMS thinks shouldn't exist.
I'll ask him, assuming I can find a valid email address for him.
thanks and thanks!
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5:46 a.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
>>>> "Jerry" == Jerry James
<james(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Jerry> 20) Source files lacking license information: dgif_lib.c,
Jerry> gif_io.c, gifrlib.h, glade.c, gtk-glue.c, gtk-xemacs.c,
Jerry> gtk-xemacs.h, hftctl.c, libsst.c, libsst.h, libst.h,
Jerry> m/alliant1.h, m/alliant4.h, m/gould-np1.h, m/ibm370aix.h,
Jerry> m/is386.h, m/mips4.h, m/ncr386.h, m/news-risc.h, m/paragon.h,
Jerry> m/pmax.h, m/pyrmips.h, m/sgi3000.h, m/sun3.h, m/sun3-68881.h,
Jerry> m/sun3-fpa.h, m/sun3-soft.h, m/tandem-s2.h, offix-cursors.h,
Jerry> paths.h.in, ppc.ldscript, most (but not all) of the files in the
Jerry> s directory, toolbar-common.h, tooltalk.doc, ui-byhand.c,
Jerry> ui-gtk.c, ui-gtk.h, unexencap.c
All of the above files under the 'm' directory contain the comment;
/* Synched up with: FSF 19.31. */
So they're probably under the GPL v2 or later license. However, they're
also configuration files for machines so old that no one would miss them
if we deleted them.
Malcolm
--
Malcolm Purvis <malcolmp(a)xemacs.org>
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:50 a.m.
New subject: Unified file-name syntax?
* Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
David Kastrup writes:
> It is a different question, however, whether it makes sense at all for
> some project to go to all this hassle when XEmacs is likely going to
> move to GPLv3 eventually, anyway.
This will happen soon, I think.
The two things that need to be done are (1) to make sure that the
code
covered is all under the "GPLv2 or later" language, and (2) to confer
with the SXEmacs guys since they share our package distribution. (1)
has been done already, I think, by Mats Lidell, but needs to be
verified, and (2) won't take long.
Less time than you think... :-)
,----[ *xetla-changelog* ]
| 2007-11-27 02:03:29 GMT Steve Youngs <steve(a)sxemacs.org> patch-37
|
| Summary:
| Update the last of the GPL licence headers to GPLv3
| Revision:
| sxemacs--main--22.1.8--patch-37
`----
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| SXEmacs - For lovers of fine things! |
| See <http://store.sxemacs.org/> for other fine things! |
|------------------------------------<steve(a)sxemacs.org>---|
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5962
days inactive
5968
days old
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
David Kastrup -
Jerry James -
Malcolm Purvis -
Michael Albinus -
Michael Sperber -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Steve Youngs -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest