Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?
On 30 Sep 1999, David Coe wrote:
> Is that still an accurate description of the legal status (from
> FSF's perspective) of XEmacs, and if so, shouldn't we move it to
Yes, probably; but no. RMS is referring to the fact that many authors
of many pieces of xemacs haven't assigned copyright to the FSF,
meaning that copyright remains with them, or possibly even their
employer, depending on sticky employment contracts. Therefore,
to be absolutely 100% anal about the `freeness' of the `GNU system',
he is declaring that any code that hasn't been copyright-assigned
to the FSF is not worthy of inclusion in the GNU system.
Chris <email@example.com> ( http://www.fluff.org/chris )