marco-oweber at gmx.de
Mon Jul 19 20:45:22 CEST 2010
Excerpts from Štěpán Němec's message of Mon Jul 19 19:41:44 +0200 2010:
> Marc Weber <marco-oweber at gmx.de> writes:
> Why? Care to provide some arguments? (To save you part of the potential
> work, I can reply to some of the obvious ones in advance:
Let me rephrase then: I think Emacs users who don't know vimpulse should
find vimpulse easily. So in fact you don't have to include the sources.
Adding a big fat help entry telling about its existence would be enough.
Eg make the viper screen say "vimpulse is based on viper and provides
more advanced Vim editing featuers. See ...."
Maybe you're right that it doesn't make sense to move all code into
About the licensing: I don't understand it. GNU emacs is GPL, isn't it?
So everyone who is using it may ask for source. If you get a copy you
may redistribute the code yourself etc.
" What we are possibly losing is the ability to force others to make their modifications free ".
Can someone give me an example how this works: Making a GPLd application
like emacs unfree - or parts of it?
Why do you have to know all copyright holders to enforce the GPL
Is it because you can't enforce the GPL laws for someone else - because
the one (maybe unkown) person must do it?
More information about the implementations-list