marco-oweber at gmx.de
Mon Jul 19 23:07:24 CEST 2010
> The point here is not *knowing* about all the copyright holders. The
> point is that the FSF insists on being *the* copyright holder on some of
> the GNU software, including GNU Emacs. The only rationale I've seen in
> various phrasings goes like "it will put us in better position while
> enforcing the GNU GPL".
To enforce the GPL there must be a vialotor, correct?
Let's call that person V.
What happens if V distributes Emacs adding one anonymous patch.
I'd call this patched Emacs P-Emacs.
Then FSF has no longer the strong position on PEmacs it has on GNU
So what's the point in protecting GNU Emacs if you can fork and call it
XYZ-Emacs thereby weakening FSF's position on XYZ Emacs which still
looks and behaves like GNU Emacs?
If you read up what is written about LGPL: Please don't use unless you
have to ? You have to use LGPL if other libraries exist proprietary
firms could use.
People could use XYZ-Emacs because its behaviour is almost the same as
of GNU Emacs.
More information about the implementations-list