reftex needs to be upgraded.
dak at gnu.org
Mon Oct 6 04:43:19 EDT 2008
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
> > Nobody but you claims that .deb is supposed to include source.
> And nobody but you claims that XEmacs packages are missing any source.
That's because you haven't heard anybody else's opinion: I have stated
the problem just on this list, and the developers leave it to you to
bluster your way out of any licensing problem.
So you make it appear basically as sort of a standoff between the two of
us: nobody but you claims that XEmacs packages are including all of the
corresponding source required for building them, according to the letter
and spirit of the GPL.
The problem is that making it appear like a standoff does not help in
addressing the problem: if anybody tries solving what actually is a
technical problem in a technical way, he would appear as opposing you as
the project leader.
If you prefer getting a more authoritive opinion from the FSF copyright
clerk, I can certainly inquire there. Of course, you'll picture a
potentially unfavorable result as some sort of David and/or GNU vendetta
specifically aimed at XEmacs.
It is a bit hard to phrase an appropriate reply since you are
vacillating between various excuses (I'll take the GPLv3 language here
since the "bluster our way out of this" approach will most likely
continue through the GPLv3 licensing. Since the GPLv3 provisions are
even more lenient where different, this does not actually invalidate the
point I am making).
a) The GPL language of
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts
to control those activities. However, it does not include the
work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally
available free programs which are used unmodified in performing
those activities but which are not part of the work.
somehow does not apply to all the source needed to generate a particular
XEmacs package file, specifically not the scripts controlling this
activity. Note that I am not talking about the generic XEmacs package
build system here (which I regard as an independent work), but the
package-specific control files, like XEmacs.rules (IIRC).
b) The GPL language of
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place
(gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to
copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that
supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear
directions next to the object code saying where to find the
Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the
Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
somehow implies that sticking the files on some CVS server without
public access and without announcement in packages or elsewhere is
supposed to constitute "equivalent access" to packages widely
distributed via different channels: ftp, disks, Linux distributions,
XEmacs mirrors and so on.
The GPL doesn't require that Debian distribute debian/rules with
every .deb built from GPL sources, and it doesn't require us to
distribute XEmacs.rules with every -pkg.tar.gz.
diatribe can be sorted in either category, depending on whether you want
to ignore the parallel distribution of Debian source packages (which
include debian/rules) or claim that a single semi-private CVS server
constitutes "equivalent access".
> Give it up, David.
I can't give up a fight I am not participating in. As long as you
consider everybody reporting and explaining a problem (whether legal or
technical) an enemy, you'll never run out of either untackled problems
or enemies. And if your friends fail to tell you when you are wrong and
help you address a problem, that lot remains with the enemies.
I don't care which camp you want to group me with. What I do care about
is that problems get addressed. And not by badmouthing the messenger
and misrepresenting the message. As long as you keep doing that here
with regard to reports of mine, expect that I keep correcting you. You
don't have a monopoly on boneheadedness.
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
More information about the XEmacs-Beta