Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!bu-cs!bloom-beacon!oberon!sm.unisys.com!psivax!ttidca!mb
From: mb@ttidca.TTI.COM (Michael Bloom)
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
Subject: Re: chmod 777
Summary: why the chmod 777 is inappropriate + constructive suggestion
Message-ID: <3412@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 88 14:26:51 GMT
References: <8811142028.AA00709@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Reply-To: mb@ttidca.tti.com (Michael Bloom)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica
Lines: 25

In article <8811142028.AA00709@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>,
	rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes:
  >  I do not believe it is a good thing to have security among the users
  >  of a computer system.  If I were to distribute files that set the mode
  >  to something other than 777, I would in effect be promoting the practice
  >  that I do not approve of.  Therefore, I don't do it.

Perhaps then, the gnu emacs license should state that setting the mode to
0777 is required, and using any other setting will revoke that instance of the
license. 

Is the making of such policy decisions for sites using emacs in line
with FSF's goals? If not, does it weaken FSF's message? 

I personally tend to think that it does, and that such installation
site policy be left to the discretion of the site manager, not
dictated by the makefile.

Likely 99.999% of sites installing emacs are turning off public write access
following installation. At a single site, this is a trivial amount of time
spent, but it is nonetheless extra work that is being performed at many
thousands of sites. 

I would like to suggest that either the "chmod" be removed, or the mode to
use in it be settable in "config.h".