Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cpg 5436 days ago
OK, it seems like it may have been an oversight (as in, not to hide anything or subvert someone else). The (over-)reaction by RMS may be a bit too harsh, when a simple README or something might suffice.

Every church has to have its pope, though ...

Edit: a simple README to point the issue in older tarballs might suffice -- though the issue has to be fixed going forward, no question on that.
3 comments
ithkuil 5436 days ago
"[..]We are, in essence, distributing binary blobs with Emacs" (Chong Yidong)

Note the "in essence". They are not actually distributing binary blobs, they are distributing generated code made with a parser generator which they are not distributing, and they argue that this is equivalent of distributing binary code for all practical purposes, as the user "may neither fix nor extend the existing functionality."

link
meastham 5435 days ago
The issue is not that they aren't distributing the parser generator, it's that they're not distributing the grammars that are the input to the generator.
link
wccrawford 5436 days ago
That post says they have to delete the old versions, but... If what you've said it true, they could just distribute the parser generator, or something that does the same job.

It's not unfixable.

link
gthank 5436 days ago
The post clearly says they have to add the source or delete them.
link
DasIch 5435 days ago
The problem here is not just that they are violating the GPL. The problem is that due to the GPL anyone who distributed or distributes one of the affected Emacs versions is violating the GPL.

A simple README doesn't solve this issue.

link
modokode 5435 days ago
Technically, it's only everyone but GNU that (re)distributes emacs with the generated code that violate GPL, so you are correct in not calling that particular part a problem.
link
ajross 5435 days ago
A README isn't source distribution (though I suppose it would constitute a "written offer to provide source", which is allowable under the GPL). And it can't be retroactively applied to versions of emacs that are already distributed.

The goof here isn't that emacs is somehow "polluted" going forward; everyone agrees that this is easy to fix. The problem is that existing versions of emacs were/are distributed in a form that is a violation of its own license.

link