From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Adding advisory notification for non-ELPA package.el downloads Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:08:38 +0300 Message-ID: <831spbb0y1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1500553768.497130.1046984072.1622AF4D@webmail.messagingengine.com> <837ez3b4yd.fsf@gnu.org> <1500559308.516260.1047108888.2750C01A@webmail.messagingengine.com> <834lu7b35o.fsf@gnu.org> <1500561400.523072.1047139192.217F8F40@webmail.messagingengine.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1500563681 25303 195.159.176.226 (20 Jul 2017 15:14:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Rankin Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 20 17:14:37 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dYD9r-00063a-7t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:14:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38511 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dYD9w-0003pd-M3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:14:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54572) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dYD4V-00081J-Bw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:09:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dYD4Q-0002Bu-MS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:08:59 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59283) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dYD4Q-0002Bq-J7; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:08:54 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4818 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dYD4J-0006y8-FZ; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:08:47 -0400 In-reply-to: <1500561400.523072.1047139192.217F8F40@webmail.messagingengine.com> (message from Paul Rankin on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:36:40 +1000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:216898 Archived-At: > From: Paul Rankin > Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:36:40 +1000 > > Copyright is not merely functional, and you're reducing it to even > lesser functional purposes by arguing that given assigning copyright to > the FSF retains the subset of functional purposes of copyright that are > important to you, then they are effectively the same and should be > treated the same for everyone. Copyright is not its function, rather its > functions arise as the manifestations of the importance we see in > authorship as ownership. That's a symbolic importance, and while that > may not mean much to you, it's where all the functional purposes above > come from. Owning a thing, and having rights to that thing as if you > owned it, are not the same thing. AFAIK, the original author still owns the code he/she wrote, even after the assignment, and the authorship information is not lost by assigning the copyright. If that is true, then your concerns are based on misunderstandings. I would like to stress that it's IMO okay not to agree to assign copyright, for whatever reasons. We just need to make sure that people don't make these decisions based on misconceptions about what the assignment means, legally and practically, for the original author of the code. Once the decision is an informed one, it's eventually the call of each one of us whether to assign or not.