Re: GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > A project (like Emacs) gets to a stage of development
>
> If you want to go there, I'd be happy to :-), but please note that I
> was not talking about the Great Fork of 1994, I was talking about the
> *present* state of affairs where XEmacs developers regularly merge code
> from Emacs with minimal effort or discussion, while Emacs developers
> generally do not consider using XEmacs code at all unless the author
> is easily available to sign an assignment.


Sure, two issues got conflated in the discussion.   That was the main
disconnect between you and Alfred (that plus some confusion about
the law) and I was commenting on some of the issues that Alfred raised
but that weren't exactly responsive to what you were saying.


> Stefan will probably put it a bit differently, as I believe he
> personally has done some reverse synching, but I'm pretty sure he will
> confirm that the legal hurdles are much lower and the amount of code
> synching much higher in the Emacs -> XEmacs direction than the reverse.
> I doubt he will deny that the legal hurdles are a big factor in
> reducing the reverse sync flow to a trickle.
>
>   

Both are long overdue for a complete rewrite, though :-)

-t