Re: No sources for lisp/international/uni-*.el?

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Röhler <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 09.08.2011 03:44, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>>      >  Hm, for example lisp/international/uni-name.el doesn't look like "the
>>      >  preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". The file
>>      >  rather has the appearence of line noise. ;-)
>>
>> Maybe that memory concerned some other files.  I said I might be
>> wrong.
>>
>> Since these files are not under the GPL, we are not leading anyone to
>> violate the GPL.  So there is no legal issue, but there remains an
>> ethical issue: is it wrong for a release to contain generated files
>> made from sources that are distributed separately?
>
> In case you answer "yes", you must include the gcc-sources as well.

[And it gets more absurd with every following sentence]

Could you take your confused nonsense elsewhere?  As usual, you have no
idea what you are actually talking about.  To quote from the GPL:

      The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
    the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
    work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
    control those activities.  However, it does not include the work's
    System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
    programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
    which are not part of the work.

You have not read and understood the GPL, _and_ you have not read and
understood relevant commentary about it.  Yet you proceed not just
lecturing the Emacs developer list about it, but feel self-important
enough to include Richard Stallman in an additional copy of your
nonsensical blatherings.

Do you really think you can find anybody on this list who is even more
clueless than you are about what is written in the GPL?  So where is the
point in your tirades?  Not even on the XEmacs lists you pestered for
while, where you should be preaching to the choir, did anybody join in
your incoherent licensing rants.

So could you please stay on the sidelines when you have nothing useful
to contribute?  Thanks.

If you have problems with the English language, there are German
translations of the GPL to be found.  Try reading the one at
<URL:http://www.gnu.de/documents/gpl-3.0.de.html>.  Whether you prefer
reading the original or a translation, you really should try to
understand the main point of each clause before making statements about
the GPL, whether on this list or anywhere else.  There is also the FAQ
about the GPL at <URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html> which
might clarify a few things.

I apologize to the other list members for the tone in this mail.

-- 
David Kastrup