Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Andreas Roehler wrote: > >> as FSF assignment policy was raised again at >> python-mode@python.org, please permit to ask you a >> thing I never understood: > >> AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others >> from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty >> of revisions with a lot of people involved. > >> So how a single developer could ever declare what the >> assignment formula demands? How could any person >> declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus >> assigning it. > >> Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a >> kind of forgery? Making them false declarations, >> thus having rights about them, being everyday able to >> sue them for these false declarations? > >> Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream? > > For this audience, I'll restate my position, vis-à-vis python-mode. > > I assert that Tim Peters and myself have assigned copyright in > python-mode.el to the FSF. I believe that Ken Manheimer has done the > same, and I believe that Skip Montanaro has tried to do so several times > in the past. This should cover the majority if not the entirety of the > current python-mode.el file. > > I want it to be possible from a legal standpoint to merge python-mode.el > and python.el, taking the best and most popular features and > functionality from each. I think python-mode.el should form the basis > of the merge, with code pulled in from python.el as needed. > > Andreas has the current momentum pumpkin for working on python-mode.el, > so I want to find a way for him to do this while still retaining the > ability to merge the two modes. Note that Andreas, AFAIK has not > volunteered to do this merge, although others on the > python-mode@python.org mailing list have expressed interest. If Andreas > is unwilling to assign copyright to the FSF, then perhaps some other > mechanism will be acceptable to him and to the FSF. Please explore this > possibility. > > Thanks > Barry >
Hi Barry, thanks a lot investing that much care in the matter. For me --due to FSF assignment -- XEmacs represents much more the principle of four freedoms than GNU Emacs now. Incidentally that's the reason I changed my focus from GNU to X. So originally a pure political change, I'm not unhappy now. And yes: XEm looks nicer... :) Concerning the intended merge, let me say it again: IMO its technically impossible. As Dave wrote: proceeding differs profoundly and deliberately. We have two different modes now which implement respective features in a different way. Difference is not at the level of feature-function, but from the very beginning. It's a little bit the same as with GNU and XEmacs: you can't merge with reasonable cost and result now. >From this some chances too: Not every feature once implemented turns out useful. Not every feature is needed by everyone. I would welcome a friendly, sportive concurrence. So if Dave may tell, what's the point of python.el is in contrast to python-mode.el, I'm interested to read. Maybe we should consider development as a kind of climbing: at least one team must get the peak. From the users perspective --which should be the final measure-- it doesn't matter which team wins. Back to politics: As we have a GNU backed python.el, it seems reasonable to proceed --waving the flag of freedom :)-- with a XEmacs associated python-mode.el. Thanks all Andreas Röhler _______________________________________________ Python-mode mailing list Python-mode@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode
