Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

    > > Er, why make Arch code license-incompatible with a lot of
    > > GPLv2 code that's out there, such as the Linux kernel and (for
    > > now) XEmacs?
    > 
    > Last I looked XEmacs still was distributed under the GPL>=2, so
    > it is perfectly compatible with GPLv3.

   Sure, if somebody wants to incorporate XEmacs in a future version
   of tla, they're free to do so, and we'll applaud their taste.  But
   free software is about cooperation, and respecting others' goals.

Free software is about freedom.  If it was about cooperation, and
respecting others' goals, then we would be using a all permissive
license like the Modified BSD license.

   Footnotes: [1] Note that this argument is isomorphic to the logic
   that Richard Stallman uses for claiming that XEmacs's failure to
   collect assignments makes XEmacs code "unavailable" to Emacs,
   although the specific obstacle is different.

You might want to revise your history lesson about what Richard
thinks. http://www.stallman.org/articles/xemacs.origin

Hint, it had nothing to do with copyright assignments.