Thanks!

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
Emacs, right?

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.

Marc Weber