Re: Return

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Samuel Bronson writes:

 > when they describe software in these parts, but note that here they
 > describe the *control* over a *particular* source tree, which is a
 > distinctly different thing,

Nobody has control over "the" source tree in open source or free
software.  What individuals can control are disk space and maintainer
time, and perhaps "mind share".

 > though many effects may be similar.

FUD.  For heaven's sake, we all use dVCSes, so everybody clearly has
"control" over "the" source tree in the sense of disk space.  And for
distribution, there are dozens of zero-fee outlets.  Within the free
software and open source communities[1], only mind share matters, but
that is independent of "control of a source tree".

Richard, Linus, Theo, and I, inter alia, have some say over mind share
because of past service to the community, present effort, and the
assessment of our abilities by our communities.  Not because of our
control of certain disk space, but because people *want to use* the
trees on the disks we control.  N.B. I make that comparison
deliberately in all humility[sic], because it demonstrates that there
is a continuum of "control" over mind share (and it's
multidimensional, too).  Some are more equal than others.  There are
reasons for that (perhaps none that justify my own exalted position --
and so it goes :-).

 > Probably, in the case of add-on packages, it does not help that the
 > XEmacs packaging machinery is only intended for use with packages
 > stored in its own CVS tree...

That is false.  If somebody wants to use our packaging machinery for
out of tree packaging, they are certainly welcome to do so.  VM does
it, for example.  I among others would spend some effort to make that
easier; I know it's rather awkward at the moment.

The point is that what people have consistently asked for is *not*
that the machinery be usable out of tree.  It turns out that lots of
people have figured out how to make the machinery work out of tree.
What they want is for *us to distribute* packages made out of tree.
That's quite different, and I don't see any way it's going to happen,
any more than Emacs Lisp is going to become Common Lisp without
convincing Richard of the need.

If someone doesn't like that, all they need to change it is mind
share.  They most likely have everything else already, and if not,
it's easy to acquire.

Footnotes: 
[1]  The point being that outside of those communities, control over
trees is indeed possible and powerful.  In fact, the GNU GPL exploits
that power.