Re: address@hidden: Font Lock on-the-fly misfontification in C++]

[David Kastrup]

Aidan Kehoe <address@hidden> writes:

>  Ar an dara lá de mí Lúnasa, scríobh David Kastrup: 
>
>  > And we use the term "Emacs" for referring to Emacs.
>
>  > When the term "GNU Emacs" is used, it is to draw attention to the
>  > GNU project and the part Emacs plays within it, not to insinuate
>  > that the scope of Emacs is supposed to be restricted to within
>  > GNU.
>
> No-one uses “GNU Emacs” to insinuate that the editor is supposed to
> be restricted to within the GNU project. What gave you that
> impression?

Why else use it for distinguishing between Emacs and XEmacs?  Their
relation to the GNU project is similar.  Many parts of GNU are not
copyrighted by the FSF, including software carrying "GNU" in its
name.

>  > Contrasting "XEmacs" and "GNU Emacs" is therefore misleading.
>  > The proper names of the editors are "Emacs" and "XEmacs".
>
> Then GNU Emacs should call itself just “Emacs” on its startup
> screen, as XEmacs calls itself “XEmacs” on its startup screen.

I repeat: when the term "GNU Emacs" is used, it is to draw attention
to the GNU project and the part Emacs plays within it.

>  > "GNU Emacs" is a distinction, but not one differentiating Emacs
>  > and XEmacs.
>
> I disagree.

I am afraid that I consider the opinion of the creator of Emacs more
relevant than yours with regard on whether Emacs should be allowed to
be named Emacs.  Of course, you are free to call XEmacs whatever you
like.  But the name "Emacs" is already taken.

>  > [...] I don't think it too onerous to expect that XEmacs
>  > developers call Emacs "Emacs".
>
> Active developers call your branch of the editor GNU Emacs! It is
> hypocritical at best to object when others do likewise.

I repeat: When the term "GNU Emacs" is used, it is to draw attention
to the GNU project and the part Emacs plays within it, not to
insinuate that the scope of Emacs is supposed to be restricted to
within GNU.

>  > The stance that "Emacs" is supposed to mean "Emacs and XEmacs"
>  > and only "GNU Emacs" is supposed to carry the meaning "Emacs" is
>  > not really helpful, not even to XEmacs users.
>
> XEmacs still supports (emacs-version); lots of our documentation
> uses “emacs” to refer to any version of the editor, something the
> GNU branch rarely does (that is, it rarely admits that the
> documentation may be applicable to other branches.).

Don't you find it silly to blame upstream for your failures to update
the documentation in order to reflect the fork?

> I personally would prefer to do this less; I changed the title bar
> to say “XEmacs” rather than “emacs” partly because of that.

A perfectly reasonable stance.

I'll give you a historical document which might make it clearer to you
why
a) the documentation of XEmacs has not from early on bothered to
distinguish between Lucid Emacs and Emacs.
b) RMS is not too enthused about XEmacs documentation and developers
trying to hijack the name of Emacs to mean anything but Emacs.

<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.help/msg/764864608067f821?as_q=&address@hidden>

Note that this is all water under the draw bridge now, but
historically, the creators of Lucid Emacs laid claim to and hijacked
the name Emacs (without any further qualifications) for their own fork
of it.

Their claim to be the legitimate successor of interest to Emacs was
what has fueled the idea that "Emacs" somehow is supposed be a proper
name of XEmacs.  These claims were made in order to cause developers
to move over to Lucid Emacs.

XEmacs is not Emacs, but a fork of it.  The license of Emacs permits
forking its code, it does not permit forking its name.

That is a bit of the background why the usage put forth in the Emacs
FAQ should be just "Emacs" and "XEmacs".

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum