Re: XEmacs binding

On 29 Oct 2001, Yoshiki Hayashi wrote:

> > That would be a sever blow in the face of the RPM users of the world and
> > others. Popular packages need to be distributed binary (as well) to get
> > accepted by a broad audience. IMHO.
>
> Yeah, but I cannot help that. I'm not the only copyright holder of
> XEmacs and I cannot change the contents of GNU GPL or Subversion license,
> either.

I thought we were talking about the XEemacs bindings code for Subversion? A
module that would be outside both the core XEmacs, built with Subversion
libraries. That doesn't require you to modify XEmacs itself, does it?

> > Why not use the plain modified BSD (without the announcement clause)? It
> > would run fine with Apache, Subversion *and* (L)GPL.
>
> Yes, it is an option. I'm guessing that if I add it to XEmacs, some may
> want it to be licenced under GPL as well. I need to ask other XEmacs
> developers for that, though.

If you write an add-on to work license-wise with both XEmacs and Subersion,
you must be compatible with both the GPL and Apache(-style) licenses. That's
why I suggest the BSD.

I don't think relicensing XEmacs is anything anyone would want to even start
thinking about. Just writing it gives me a headache! :-)

> It's a shame that licensing issue prevent distribution of open source
> software.

... and isn't it surpringsingly often exactly one license that causes all the
problems? :-O

-- 
      Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.se - +46-705-44 31 77
   ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org