From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Pogonyshev Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:48:55 +0200 Message-ID: <200412200147.05475.pogonyshev@gmx.net> References: <014501c4e4eb$3af838d0$0300a8c0@neeeeeee2> <200412191810.21569.pogonyshev@gmx.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1103500242 1672 80.91.229.6 (19 Dec 2004 23:50:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:50:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, bob@rattlesnake.com, stephen@xemacs.org, andy@xemacs.org Original-X-From: xemacs-beta-bounces@xemacs.org Mon Dec 20 00:50:34 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from gwyn.tux.org ([199.184.165.135] ident=ident-user) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CgAos-0002kY-00 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:50:34 +0100 Original-Received: from gwyn.tux.org (ident-user@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBJNj6c7008438; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:45:10 -0500 Original-Received: from gwyn.tux.org (ident-user@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBJNj3bQ008431 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:45:03 -0500 Original-Received: (from xemacweb@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id iBJNj3ex008430 for xemacs-beta-mailman@xemacs.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:45:03 -0500 Original-Received: from gwyn.tux.org (ident-user@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBJNj111008414 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:45:01 -0500 Original-Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id iBJNj1B7008411 for xemacweb@tux.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:45:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iBJNixPb008365 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:45:00 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2004 23:44:52 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (EHLO localhost.localdomain) (195.50.12.118) by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 20 Dec 2004 00:44:52 +0100 X-Authenticated: #16844820 Original-To: David Kastrup User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/622/Wed Dec 8 08:36:53 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on gwyn.tux.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/622/Wed Dec 8 08:36:53 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on gwyn.tux.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/622/Wed Dec 8 08:36:53 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on gwyn.tux.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/622/Wed Dec 8 08:36:53 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on gwyn.tux.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Status: Clean X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by gwyn.tux.org id iBJNixPb008365 X-XEmacs-List: beta X-BeenThere: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: XEmacs Beta Testers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: xemacs-beta-bounces@xemacs.org Errors-To: xemacs-beta-bounces@xemacs.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta:17518 gmane.emacs.devel:31276 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:31276 David Kastrup wrote: > Paul Pogonyshev writes: > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> b) why it would be technically impossible for you to change the XEmacs > >> manual licence to the GFDL: it does not seem like you have handed out > >> any written assurances that the licence is never going to change. > > > > I think because contributing a piece of work implicitly means that you > > agree to distribute it under the _current_ license. > > Whose theory is that? I don't see any of it in copyright law, and I > don't see any of it in the GPL. Mine, I guess. Just to note, I'm not particularly familiar with all this stuff, so take it lightly, please. I'm just on that ``common sense'' ground. > This sounds suspiciously like the > "viral licence" theories where a contact with GPLed software magically > makes all of your software free for the taking. I fail to see much similarity, but feel free to elaborate. > This is simply not true. To have software GPLed, you need to > explicitly licence it that way, regardless of whether it has come in > contact with other GPLed software or not. Only if it has, you must > not redistribute a combined product under a different licence. But > there is no automatic remedy involved: you always have _several_ > choices to come into compliance: licence the whole under GPL, or > replace the GPLed parts by something different, or stop distributing > it. > > > So, to relicense a piece of contributed work, you need an agreement > > from the author, either got in advance (like FSF copyright > > assignment includes) or got right before the license change. > > To "relince" something it must have been licensed in the first place. I cannot understand what exactly you think about contributions without signed papers. Let's try to filter it out (again, I'm basing on my common sense and little knowledge of copyright law, so, please, be kind to my mistakes.) So, let's assume John contributes a large patch (500 lines of code) to XEmacs. Since we are talking of XEmacs here, he is not asked for any copyright assignments or other legal papers. Now, what is the legal status of XEmacs + John's patch now? (We assume XEmacs is legally distributed under GNU GPL before the patch is added.) I'm listing all possibilities I can think of. Possibility 1. John's patch is automagically licensed under GNU GPL and ``license control'' is miraculously transferred to some mistical ``XEmacs spirit,'' that can change the license at whim, like FSF could if it wasn't bound by our assignment papers. This doesn't sound real. Possibility 2. John's patch is automagically licensed under GNU GPL, but to relicense it, you need his blessing. This is what I guessed in the previous message based on XEmacs as a whole being distributed under GNU GPL. However, you wrote that John's code couldn't be licensed implicitly: ``To have software GPLed, you need to explicitly licence it that way, regardless of whether it has come in contact with other GPLed software or not.'' What does ``explicitly'' means, BTW? I'm distributing a program I wrote, with each file saying it comes under GPL and the GPL text in `COPYING'. Is this explicit enough? Should John distribute his patch and GPL text along with it to make it explicit? Or is signing legal papers the only option? What is the difference between licensing done by the project original author and its contributors in terms of licensing? Possibility 3. John's patch is not licensed at all, because he didn't explictly license it. However, to the best of my knowledge of copyright law, you cannot even _use_ non-licensed work, not to mention modify or distribute it. This means that XEmacs people cannot legally merge John's patch in. In other words, XEmacs + John's patch combination is illegal to use, modify or distribute... Possibility 4. John loses the copyright on his contribution. That would solve the problem, but placing something in public domain is the decision of the author, so implicit lossage of copyright sounds way less realistic than implicit licensing. Besides, some of XEmacs files do carry other than FSF's copyrights. Possibility 5. XEmacs does require some sort of explicit licensing of contributions. Again, that would solve all problems, but from what I've heard here, this is simply not the case. So, to summarize, if my reasoning is correct, there are only two options left. Either XEmacs is distributed under GNU GPL, because each contributor implicitly (and some of them explicitly, by assigning copyright to FSF) licensed it under that license. Or XEmacs is used, distributed and modified illegally, because some parts of it are not licensed by copyright holders in any way. This means that people working on XEmacs, as well as distributors and even common users can be sued for copyright infringement (or how do they call it.) I personally don't feel easy about the second option. I'd like to be convinced that either the first or a third (missed here) option is true. Paul Pogonyshev