Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 05:01:05AM +0100, Chris Rutter wrote:
> 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.
You've got many correct facts there, but you're wrong.
The issue isn't inclusion in the GNU system. The issue is inclusion
in packages where FSF is the copyright holder.