Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

I have a query wrt to Emacs/Orgmode.

For the impending Org-8.0 release, there two files that I had authored
which will be bundled with it.  (Org-8.0 is not merged with Emacs yet)

ox-html.el: It is a port of the old exporter to the new export framework
            and requires substantial changes authored by me.  There are
            *other* authors as well who could be counted as principals.

ox-odt.el: This file is entirely authored by me to the tune of 99.9%
           save for minor refactoring patches by Nicolas Goaziou and
           maybe some trivial changes by others.

I have some disagreements with current Orgmode maintainer and the
community in general. 

I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
as part of Org distribution.  I would like to register my displeasure in
a substantial way.

More specifically, I would like to know how copyright assignment works
for files that are not yet part of Emacs.  Is there is a way I can
withdraw my assignment (for a substantial period - say 3-6 months) big
enough to create a minor discomfort for the Org community.

Please advise me privately.  Just wanted to register my general
reservation in having these files included as part of Emacs if and when
the need arises.

ps: I am interested in discussing the merits or nature of my
disagreements with Bastien or the Orgmode community in general.  I would
like to know whether the copyright and licensing process etc to control
how the files are distributed.

Jambunathan K.

-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

> ox-html.el: It is a port of the old exporter to the new export framework
>             and requires substantial changes authored by me.  There are
                  ^^^^^^^^
                    has 

>             *other* authors as well who could be counted as principals.

ps: I am *not* interested in discussing the merits or nature of my
disagreements with Bastien or the Orgmode community in general.  

I would like to know at what point the copyright assignment kicks in and
whether there is any way I can control how the files are disritbuted -
The files I am talking of are in development repository of Org and there
has been no public release as I type it.

> Jambunathan K.

-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Karl Fogel]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>I have a query wrt to Emacs/Orgmode.
>
>For the impending Org-8.0 release, there two files that I had authored
>which will be bundled with it.  (Org-8.0 is not merged with Emacs yet)
>
>ox-html.el: It is a port of the old exporter to the new export framework
>            and requires substantial changes authored by me.  There are
>            *other* authors as well who could be counted as principals.
>
>ox-odt.el: This file is entirely authored by me to the tune of 99.9%
>           save for minor refactoring patches by Nicolas Goaziou and
>           maybe some trivial changes by others.
>
>I have some disagreements with current Orgmode maintainer and the
>community in general. 
>
>I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
>as part of Org distribution.  I would like to register my displeasure in
>a substantial way.
>
>More specifically, I would like to know how copyright assignment works
>for files that are not yet part of Emacs.  Is there is a way I can
>withdraw my assignment (for a substantial period - say 3-6 months) big
>enough to create a minor discomfort for the Org community.
>
>Please advise me privately.  Just wanted to register my general
>reservation in having these files included as part of Emacs if and when
>the need arises.
>
>ps: I am interested in discussing the merits or nature of my
>disagreements with Bastien or the Orgmode community in general.  I would
>like to know whether the copyright and licensing process etc to control
>how the files are distributed.

[Despite your request, I'm not sending this advice privately.]

The proper way to handle such disagreements in a free software community
is to fork the software, or propose forking it and see who follows, not
to try to retroactively impose monopolistic restrictions on distributing
the code.

You could also ask to have your name and implied endorsement removed
from the software in question.

Both of these solutions would solve your problem while not restricting
others from distributing and using the code.

As a purely legal question: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal
advice, but I don't believe you can retroactively withdraw your
copyright assignment -- if I were the assignee, I'd ignore such a
threat, because the purpose of assignment is to prevent people from
doing what you're trying to do now.  (I'd also probably stop accepting
further contributions from you, however.)

-Karl

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Karl Fogel writes:

 > As a purely legal question: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal
 > advice, but I don't believe you can retroactively withdraw your
 > copyright assignment

Be careful.  One clearly can't "withdraw the assignment" on files that
Emacs has received, because the FSF now owns the copyright.  You can
terminate assign.future, and that would affect any files in the
pipeline.  IANAL, but this is based on real legal advice from a real
lawyer (I decided not to do it for the reasons you give).

Again, IANAL, but I suppose that the "date of receipt" and the
definition of "Emacs receiving" almost certainly[sic] don't correspond
to our intuitive concepts.  I even wonder if experienced lawyers would
necessarily agree on those terms.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> Karl Fogel writes:
>
>  > As a purely legal question: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal
>  > advice, but I don't believe you can retroactively withdraw your
>  > copyright assignment
>
> Be careful.  One clearly can't "withdraw the assignment" on files that
> Emacs has received, 

Emacs hasn't received my files.  It is part of Org-8.0's mainline.  I
want to selectively withhold assignment for just those two files and not
for my other contributions to Emacs.

I will propose and re-visit the assignment in favor of FSF and inclusion
in GNU ELPA, after a substantial period has passed. 

I am striking (think, "workers strike").  Free software will continue to
have my sympathies, FWIW.  I don't want to support or continue
contributing to Orgmode as long as the current maintainer is reigning.
IMNSHO - others agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion doesn't matter
to me, I make my own conclusions - he is acting in a way that is *not*
in the interest of Orgmode in the long run.

I can make assignment come at some future date - a future dated cheque,
so to speak - even as I right.

> because the FSF now owns the copyright.  You can
> terminate assign.future, and that would affect any files in the
> pipeline.  IANAL, but this is based on real legal advice from a real
> lawyer (I decided not to do it for the reasons you give).
>
> Again, IANAL, but I suppose that the "date of receipt" and the
> definition of "Emacs receiving" almost certainly[sic] don't correspond
> to our intuitive concepts.  I even wonder if experienced lawyers would
> necessarily agree on those terms.

-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stefan Monnier]

> I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
> as part of Org distribution.  I would like to register my displeasure in
> a substantial way.

If you say that those files should not be covered by your existing
assignment, then we respect this (of course, that needs to be done
beforehand).
Of course, it'd be better to resolve the disagreement.


        Stefan

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Stefan

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
>> as part of Org distribution.  I would like to register my displeasure in
>> a substantial way.
>
> If you say that those files should not be covered by your existing
> assignment, then we respect this (of course, that needs to be done
> beforehand).

I want to selectively withhold the assignment for just those two files.
Those files haven't hit Emacs repo yet.

ox-html.el - Multiple authorship (I am one of the principal authors)
ox-odt.el  - I am the sole author

I intend to continue contributing to Emacs and I will re-visit my
assignment decision in 6 months to 1 year time.

Let me know what I should do.

> Of course, it'd be better to resolve the disagreement.

I have tried.  (org-odt.el landed in Emacs precisely because I didn't
want to push far.)

I want to register my protest in a substantial way.  Current maintainer
of Orgmode has been acting in a way that creates tremendous friction for
contributions from me and other parties.

Jambunathan K.

>         Stefan

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Carsten Dominik]

On 11.3.2013, at 03:32, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>> I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
>> as part of Org distribution.  I would like to register my displeasure in
>> a substantial way.
> 
> If you say that those files should not be covered by your existing
> assignment, then we respect this (of course, that needs to be done
> beforehand).

I think a step like this would require a careful investigation.

ox-html.el is a rewrite of org-html.el, which I wrote initially and which has since then received many changes by the org community, all under full assignment to Emacs.  In the context of Org-mode, ox-html.el should not be seen as a new file, but as a rename and massive change of org-html.el, where the parser part has moved to ox.el.

I am not as familiar with ox-odt.el, but I think it could be seen as a rewrite of org-odt.el which is in Emacs and has the assignment.

If we allow people to reduce functionality of a package that is already in Emacs by making changes to it, then withdraw the assignment, I think this would create a bad precedent.

- Carsten

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

I have approached assign@gnu.org.  

You can argue your case with them and I will let contractual terms (and
not individual preferences and wishes) dictate what the options are.a

For all practical purposes, I will consider this thread as closed on
emacs-devel@gnu.org.

ps: Note that, I am for inclusion of the file in the Org distribution
and Emacs in general.  I am willing to negotiate with any affected
parties the terms - the terms mostly concern how Orgmode is maintained -
under which, I can consider a consent to assignment of copyright of my
work.

I am willing to hussle in a closed room.  Unless I state otherwise, my
current intent to withhold consent to my work stands.

Jambunathan K.

-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Carsten Dominik writes:

 > If we allow people to reduce functionality of a package that is
 > already in Emacs by making changes to it,

Too late.  That's already allowed by the GPL, in fact, it's a
fundamental principle of software freedom.

 > then withdraw the assignment, I think this would create a bad
 > precedent.

Well, the question is whether committing to the org-mode repository
*legally* constitutes a contribution to Emacs covered by the "future"
assignment.  If not, you don't have a choice.  If it does, then the
assignment can't be withdrawn; the transfer of ownership of a specific
copyright is an historical event, not an ongoing contract.

As for the practical issue of allowing authors to withdraw code
(whether they have a legal right to do so or not), I side with Stefan
if it hasn't actually landed in the Emacs mainline yet.  It's the old
story of "If you love something, set it free.  If it comes back, it's
yours forever.  If not, it never really was yours."  (Of course this
applies to the OP with equal force, but that doesn't mean Emacs
shouldn't respect it just because he doesn't.)  I mean, if this
actually creates a *precedent*, then Emacs as a community is dead
anyway.[1]


Footnotes: 
[1]  Of course this doesn't apply to a case of contribution with
*intent* to withdraw.  If it really seems like it was done in bad
faith, then fight with all the legal resources you have.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 11.03.2013 03:32, schrieb Stefan Monnier:
>> I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
>> as part of Org distribution.  I would like to register my displeasure in
>> a substantial way.
>
> If you say that those files should not be covered by your existing
> assignment, then we respect this (of course, that needs to be done
> beforehand).

Hi Stefan,

by creating a precedence case accepting conditions beyond the GPL, IMHO that proceeding
puts the validity of GPL on risk.

Other authors now on discontentment --for what reasons whatever-- might detect that.

Best,

Andreas

> Of course, it'd be better to resolve the disagreement.
>
>
>          Stefan
>
>

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Germán A. Arias]

El lun, 11-03-2013 a las 07:10 +0100, Andreas Röhler escribió:
> Am 11.03.2013 03:32, schrieb Stefan Monnier:
> >> I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
> >> as part of Org distribution.  I would like to register my displeasure in
> >> a substantial way.
> >
> > If you say that those files should not be covered by your existing
> > assignment, then we respect this (of course, that needs to be done
> > beforehand).
> 
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> by creating a precedence case accepting conditions beyond the GPL, IMHO that proceeding
> puts the validity of GPL on risk.
> 
> Other authors now on discontentment --for what reasons whatever-- might detect that.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Andreas
> 

Once the changes/files has been send to the project, these are owned by
the FSF. That mean "copyright assignment", that you are agree to losing
the rights in those changes. Read your copyright assignment.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 11.03.2013 07:41, schrieb Germán A. Arias:
> El lun, 11-03-2013 a las 07:10 +0100, Andreas Röhler escribió:
>> Am 11.03.2013 03:32, schrieb Stefan Monnier:
>>>> I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
>>>> as part of Org distribution.  I would like to register my displeasure in
>>>> a substantial way.
>>>
>>> If you say that those files should not be covered by your existing
>>> assignment, then we respect this (of course, that needs to be done
>>> beforehand).
>>
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> by creating a precedence case accepting conditions beyond the GPL, IMHO that proceeding
>> puts the validity of GPL on risk.
>>
>> Other authors now on discontentment --for what reasons whatever-- might detect that.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>
> Once the changes/files has been send to the project, these are owned by
> the FSF. That mean "copyright assignment", that you are agree to losing
> the rights in those changes.

That might be right. Not sure if any states law accept it's legal stipulations.
Non-US-citizen have to abide to theirs local law, not to US-Courts.

Anyway, stressing the need of copyright assignment might spread the illusion,
a free software project might require that procedure in order to distribute code.
What the case at stake seems to demonstrate so far.

In fact publishing under GPL or other free license is needed solely for the
right to distribute, not CA.



  Read your copyright assignment.
>
>
>

Don't understand what your are saying here.
Never signed one, for the very reasons given.

BTW, looking at the roots of the current affair might help avoiding mistakes

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-02/msg00701.html


Andreas

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Andreas Röhler writes:

 > Anyway, stressing the need of copyright assignment might spread the
 > illusion, a free software project might require that procedure in
 > order to distribute code.  What the case at stake seems to
 > demonstrate so far.

Please, Andreas, you are completely off-base.  It is well-known that
the assignment policy is purely a legal strategy recommended by some
of the best lawyers in the business, and that's all.  It has nothing
to do with software freedom except that it strengthens the FSF's
ability to enforce its copyright in Emacs, which is the only legal
tool it has for protecting Emacs' freedom.[1]

It's true that Emacs' hardline "no assignment, no commit" policy
leaves it unable to incorporate some useful code, but that's always
been true, and accepted as a necessary evil.

AFAICT misconceptions to the contrary are not widespread, especially
now that many projects are turning to assignment policies (especially
in the wake of the "SCO v. Linux" fiasco).


Footnotes: 
[1]  It also allows the FSF to change licenses when necessary, a
prominent example being fixing the "unchangeable anonymous Emacs doc
license" bug by changing the license of the manual to the FDL,
something which XEmacs cannot easily do for its own manual due to
multiple ownership (most of whom dislike the FDL).  But that is not
necessary to software freedom, although it arguably improves it.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 11.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
> Andreas Röhler writes:
>
>   > Anyway, stressing the need of copyright assignment might spread the
>   > illusion, a free software project might require that procedure in
>   > order to distribute code.  What the case at stake seems to
>   > demonstrate so far.
>
> Please, Andreas, you are completely off-base.

[ ... ]

Hi Stephen,

let's mention a point not touched so far.

Copyright makes sense with poems or story-telling maybe. A story lives by themselves.
What does a line of code? It depends on thousands and millions other lines written by other
  people or even by machine.

The founder-father of org-mode has already pointed at the multiple authorship of the file in question.
Now what? Do we have several copyright-assignments aiming at the same file?
We will have that, as all or many files have more than one author.
With some exceptions it's impossible to maintain such a thing like authorship WRT to files.

Cheers,

Andreas

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Andreas Röhler writes:

 > Hi Stephen,
 > 
 > let's mention a point not touched so far

Let's not.  It's way OT, and Stefan has answered the OP's Q.

I'm happy to discuss these points further with you or anyone else, but
*off list*, please (I think fs-phil@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp still
works, it's a standard mailman list -- no, I'm not on gnu.discuss or
whatever it is).

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Richard Stallman]

Please note that the FSF does not, as a general rule, agree
to retraction of a copyright assignment.  If Stefan wants to
drop some files from Emacs, he can do so.  Files in Org mode
are already on a track to be included in Emacs.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Richard

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Please note that the FSF does not, as a general rule, agree
> to retraction of a copyright assignment. 

The question of retraction doesn't arise.  One retracts what is assigned
and I haven't assigned anything.  

There is a difference between the code that is merged (already) and the
code that is proposed to be merged.  The differnce is important and
substantial.

Someone in this thread pointed out that Copyright assignment is not an
ongoing process but a historical event that happens in time.

FSF has my support and sympathies.

I have looked at the paper I have signed.  The only statement that
remotely touches the case under discussion is the item (2).  I am not
used to legalese and I might have overlooked something.  If you point to
me the specific clause which says FSF owns copyright for un-merged and
possibly un-written works then I am willing to go over that section and
satisfy myself of the (unwitting) error I might have committed.  

Even if I feel bitter by how FSF is handling my request, other
contributors will be warned that their contributions will be
appropriated away against their wishes, if they were sign a copyright.

If the FSF forcibly takes away the copyright against my wishes it
amounts to stealing or snatching away by force.  AFAICS, the spirit of
the FSF assignment is this: I assign copyright unless I state otherwise.
Now, I am explicitly stating that I don't want to assign copyright for
some part of my work.

Hoping to hear from you.

Hoping for a fair treatment,
Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Subhan Tindall]

Ah, I may see your error here Jambunathan.  Copyright becomes attached
to a work the moment in time it is created (at least in the US), and
publication has no bearing on it's existence or assignment.
The assignment of rights for "changes and enhancements to the program
" <insert progname here> covers the rights to created material from
*the moment the code is written*, not when the code is incorporated or
published in any way.  This assignment cannot be retroactively
rescinded.  There *may* be questions regarding the quantity of work
that is covered, for example if I write a for loop for my employer,
they can't really prevent me from using a for loop in the future(see
below).

A similar situation is a work made for hire. For example, I work on
many programs for my employer.  As part of my contract, all copyright
for that work is ceded to my employer.  Should I later quit my job, I
cannot rescind those rights for any work that I have created for them,
regardless of it's incorporation into any existing work, published or
unpublished.  I can however terminate the ceding of copyright on
*future* code simply by quitting my job (leaving aside issues of trade
secrets and non-compete agreements for now)

If you don't believe me, I would suggest consultation with an attorney
skilled in IP law, preferably with experience in software contracts
and works for hire, before continuing your tirade and threats against
the community.
If your interpretation should prove to be correct, I will gladly issue
a public apology in this forum.

Note: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.


On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Richard
>
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Please note that the FSF does not, as a general rule, agree
>> to retraction of a copyright assignment.
>
> The question of retraction doesn't arise.  One retracts what is assigned
> and I haven't assigned anything.
>
> There is a difference between the code that is merged (already) and the
> code that is proposed to be merged.  The differnce is important and
> substantial.
>
> Someone in this thread pointed out that Copyright assignment is not an
> ongoing process but a historical event that happens in time.
>
> FSF has my support and sympathies.
>
> I have looked at the paper I have signed.  The only statement that
> remotely touches the case under discussion is the item (2).  I am not
> used to legalese and I might have overlooked something.  If you point to
> me the specific clause which says FSF owns copyright for un-merged and
> possibly un-written works then I am willing to go over that section and
> satisfy myself of the (unwitting) error I might have committed.
>
> Even if I feel bitter by how FSF is handling my request, other
> contributors will be warned that their contributions will be
> appropriated away against their wishes, if they were sign a copyright.
>
> If the FSF forcibly takes away the copyright against my wishes it
> amounts to stealing or snatching away by force.  AFAICS, the spirit of
> the FSF assignment is this: I assign copyright unless I state otherwise.
> Now, I am explicitly stating that I don't want to assign copyright for
> some part of my work.
>
> Hoping to hear from you.
>
> Hoping for a fair treatment,
> Jambunathan K.
>
>
>



-- 
Subhan Michael Tindall | Software Developer
| smt@rentrakmail.com
RENTRAK | www.rentrak.com | NASDAQ: RENT

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Subhan Tindall writes:

 > Ah, I may see your error here Jambunathan.  Copyright becomes attached
 > to a work the moment in time it is created (at least in the US),

In any jurisdiction implementing the Berne Convention.

 > and publication has no bearing on it's existence or assignment.
 > The assignment of rights for "changes and enhancements to the
 > program " <insert progname here> covers the rights to created
 > material from *the moment the code is written*,

No, that's false.  Copyright law knows nothing of whether the material
was written "to be part of", or even contains parts of, Emacs[1], and
therefore a generic assignment cannot cover code until it is
contributed *to* Emacs, explicitly by the author inserting a "part of
Emacs" statement, explicitly by substituting the FSF for himself in
the copyright notice, or (perhaps, I'm not sure what would happen if
you maintained your own copyright notice in this case) implicitly by
committing it personally to a repository of code (not necessarily a
VCS, but any archive) that is considered "part of Emacs."  (You are
correct in that distribution of the code or presence in "the official"
Emacs repo are not necessary, of course.)

For example, the FSF has no claim on my ~/.xemacs/init.el, though it
contains generic enhancements to XEmacs (the code base for which my
assignment was explicitly designated) that I will probably contribute
in the future.

On the contrary, I could write an accounting program in 6502
assembler, send appropriate documentation to the FSF copyright clerk
indicating that I consider it to be part of (my version of ;-) XEmacs,
and my assignment for that program would take effect.

I don't claim that either of these extreme examples is at all similar
to the cases of ox-html and ox-odt.

 > A similar situation is a work made for hire.

Yes, it is similar to a work made for hire in that the scope of the
work for hire is specified, either in a standalone contract, or by
order of your employer.

Jambunathan is claiming that he has not yet designated this work as
within the scope of Emacs, but he may be ignorant of the legal
implications of committing code to certain repositories.  On the other
hand, a court might construe his ignorance to mean that no intent to
contribute was present.  I think that's strained; at the present time
org-mode code is "tracked" to be included in Emacs and I suppose he
knew that when he committed.  But AFAIK -- IANAL/TINLA -- a court
*might* be sympathetic to him.

 > For example, I work on many programs for my employer.  As part of
 > my contract, all copyright for that work is ceded to my employer.

Correct in the U.S., I believe, but that is an employment contract,
and a quite different matter, because it covers *your professional
activities* and the product *of those activities* (in some cases, 24
hours a day whether on premises or not).  An assignment of Emacs code,
extant and to be written, to the FSF is *not* an employment contract.
It is merely a convenient way to perform an indefinite number of
assignments with one signature (at least, that's what my lawyer told
me).


Footnotes: 
[1]  Of course the "parts of Emacs" are presumably copyright FSF, *but
the changes and enhancements are not* (yet).

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Carsten Dominik]

On 12.3.2013, at 03:33, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
> 
> Jambunathan is claiming that he has not yet designated this work as
> within the scope of Emacs, but he may be ignorant of the legal
> implications of committing code to certain repositories.  On the other
> hand, a court might construe his ignorance to mean that no intent to
> contribute was present.

It is easy to see and prove that the intent from day on was to become
part of Emacs.  It is clear that there is no ignorance in play.  If
anything, the conflict might have been caused in part by the fact that
the delay to get this code into Emacs was long.

Jambunathan has made it entirely explicit that the aim of his change
of heart in this question is this (I quote from a message to
emacs-orgmode@gnu.org): "I am stating my purpose in no uncertain
terms - yes it is to delay the release or cause confusion."

While I am sympathetic to the *feel* that code I write should only
go where I want it, I don't think it provides a proper basis for
working in a free software environment in the GPL sense.  Code
committed to repositories under GPL, and in this case also with
and FSF copyright assignment in place invites modification and
contributors by other authors (as has been the case for at least
one of the files in question).  These contributions are made
under the correct assumption that the code will remain to be
free and that the intent to make it part of Org-mode and/or Emacs
is irreversible.

- Carsten

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Carsten Dominik writes:
 > 
 > On 12.3.2013, at 03:33, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
 > > 
 > > Jambunathan is claiming that he has not yet designated this work as
 > > within the scope of Emacs, but he may be ignorant of the legal
 > > implications of committing code to certain repositories.  On the other
 > > hand, a court might construe his ignorance to mean that no intent to
 > > contribute was present.
 > 
 > It is easy to see and prove that the intent from day on was to become
 > part of Emacs.

If so, then I would suppose the assignment is valid and can't be
unilaterally retracted.  If I were Stefan, I'd probably still ask that
those files be revised to remove his content.  (I've actually had to
make such a decision; a 3rd party provided a port of XEmacs to Mac OS
X, dedicating the code to the public domain.  Only problem is that in
the process he removed GPL notices placed in files he copied from our
repository.  I put them back, incredibly enough he bitched about that
and about the notices that XEmacs is GPL, and that code has never been
integrated, although it's still in our repos on a branch.)

In any case, my main point was to refute the contention that an
assignment means you can't write your own Emacs or even fork Emacs.
It doesn't.  You might have to call it something else, I guess, to
avoid confusion.

Re: A proposal (ox-html.el/ox-odt.el)

[Jambunathan K]

Carsten, Stefan and others

Let me table a proposal.

All parties - including me - unequivocally agree that interest of Emacs
users should be kept in mind.

I want to fork ox-html.el and ox-odt.el (as it stands today in Org repo)
to GNU ELPA repo.  I request that Emacs maintainers recognize the GNU
ELPA version (maintained by me) as the authoritative official versions
of these files that gets bundled with SUMO Emacs.

Org maintainer can propose to merge fixes to the above files from Org
"downstream" in to "upstream" Emacs GNU ELPA.  I will oblige for an
upstream push for most part but will exercise my own discretion on a
patch by patch basis.

In summary,


  Jambunathan
    +---------------+
    |  ox-html.el   +---  push               Emacs maintainer
    |  ox-odt.el    |   \-----
    |  GNU ELPA     |         \-----    +--------------------+
    |               |               \-->|                    |
    +---------------+                   | lisp/org/ox-html.el|
           ^  Push                      | lisp/org/ox-odt.el |
           |                            |                    |
           |                            +--------------------+
           |                            | Other org files    |
    +------+---------+               /->|                    |
    |                |           /---   |                    |
    |     Org repo   |      /----       |                    |
    |                |  /---            +--------------------+
    |                +--  push
    |                |
    |                |
    +----------------+
     Org maintainer

I have my differences with Bastien.  The differences are well-known (but
not well-understood) and as far as I am concerned those are
ir-reconcilable.  I want ox-html.el and ox-odt.el to be available to
everyone (including Emacs/Org) but outside of Bastien's control.  

The above model requires one minor change: Users should be able to
download the development versions of packages via a new GNU ELPA-dev.

It seems complicated.  But captures the disributed nature of Emacs
development, IMO.

What do you think?  Consider it as a thought experiment.  It will
accommodate my wishes without shortchanging any users.

ps: Let us set aside my copyright proposal for a while.

Jambunathan K.
--

Re: A proposal (ox-html.el/ox-odt.el)

[W. Greenhouse]

Jambunathan,

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> writes:

> People are disregarding my "moral rights" over my work and pushing me in
> a corner to act a certain way to serve their own interests.  This I feel
> is plain wrong and an act of snatching or appropriation.
>
> Jambunathan K.

Moral right and copyright are unrelated concepts.  In the jurisdictions
that recognize "author's moral right" or "droit moral" (much of the EU
and other civil-code countries), such right is non-assignable and would
not even be affected by the FSF papers.  However, in the jurisdictions
where copyright is assignable, it has nothing to do with author's moral
right.

If we're going to discuss "moral right" in the less legalistic and more
broad sense of your rights in an ethical society as a person with
agency, I think you're disregarding the rights of prior contributors to
the ox-html program, of which you were but one of many.  Those
contributors did intend the code to become part of Emacs, and, morally
as well as legally, you entered into an agreement to further that aim
when you decided to work on it.  If you really do intend to take your
ball and go home, do please call a fork a fork--and also do please
recognize that you are the one "snatching" or "appropriating" a joint
work out of your own sense of pique.

> I want to fork ox-html.el and ox-odt.el (as it stands today in Org repo)
> to GNU ELPA repo.  I request that Emacs maintainers recognize the GNU
> ELPA version (maintained by me) as the authoritative official versions
> of these files that gets bundled with SUMO Emacs.

...

>
>   Jambunathan
>     +---------------+
>     |  ox-html.el   +---  push               Emacs maintainer
>     |  ox-odt.el    |   \-----
>     |  GNU ELPA     |         \-----    +--------------------+
>     |               |               \-->|                    |
>     +---------------+                   | lisp/org/ox-html.el|
>            ^  Push                      | lisp/org/ox-odt.el |
>            |                            |                    |
>            |                            +--------------------+
>            |                            | Other org files    |
>     +------+---------+               /->|                    |
>     |                |           /---   |                    |
>     |     Org repo   |      /----       |                    |
>     |                |  /---            +--------------------+
>     |                +--  push
>     |                |
>     |                |
>     +----------------+
>      Org maintainer


This makes no sense at all.  It is needless busywork for the Emacs
maintainer to integrate code from one particular contributor who is unable
to cooperate with the maintainer of the project to which he
contributes.  It also unnecessarily inconveniences ordinary Emacs/Org
users, who would now face a further obstacle to simply using the
software.  They already have to go elsewhere to get contrib/ programs
or to use the latest version of Org; now you want to make it so that
even the release version of Org is fractured and schismed.  That is
totally unacceptable.

-- 
Regards,
WGG

Re: A proposal (ox-html.el/ox-odt.el)

[Thomas S. Dye]

Aloha all,

wgreenhouse-sGOZH3hwPm2sTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org (W. Greenhouse)
writes:

> Jambunathan,
>
> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> writes:
>
>> People are disregarding my "moral rights" over my work and pushing me in
>> a corner to act a certain way to serve their own interests.  This I feel
>> is plain wrong and an act of snatching or appropriation.
>>
>> Jambunathan K.
>
> Moral right and copyright are unrelated concepts.  In the jurisdictions
> that recognize "author's moral right" or "droit moral" (much of the EU
> and other civil-code countries), such right is non-assignable and would
> not even be affected by the FSF papers.  However, in the jurisdictions
> where copyright is assignable, it has nothing to do with author's moral
> right.
>
> If we're going to discuss "moral right" in the less legalistic and more
> broad sense of your rights in an ethical society as a person with
> agency, I think you're disregarding the rights of prior contributors to
> the ox-html program, of which you were but one of many.  Those
> contributors did intend the code to become part of Emacs, and, morally
> as well as legally, you entered into an agreement to further that aim
> when you decided to work on it.  If you really do intend to take your
> ball and go home, do please call a fork a fork--and also do please
> recognize that you are the one "snatching" or "appropriating" a joint
> work out of your own sense of pique.
>
>> I want to fork ox-html.el and ox-odt.el (as it stands today in Org repo)
>> to GNU ELPA repo.  I request that Emacs maintainers recognize the GNU
>> ELPA version (maintained by me) as the authoritative official versions
>> of these files that gets bundled with SUMO Emacs.
>
> ...
>
>>
>>   Jambunathan
>>     +---------------+
>>     |  ox-html.el   +---  push               Emacs maintainer
>>     |  ox-odt.el    |   \-----
>>     |  GNU ELPA     |         \-----    +--------------------+
>>     |               |               \-->|                    |
>>     +---------------+                   | lisp/org/ox-html.el|
>>            ^  Push                      | lisp/org/ox-odt.el |
>>            |                            |                    |
>>            |                            +--------------------+
>>            |                            | Other org files    |
>>     +------+---------+               /->|                    |
>>     |                |           /---   |                    |
>>     |     Org repo   |      /----       |                    |
>>     |                |  /---            +--------------------+
>>     |                +--  push
>>     |                |
>>     |                |
>>     +----------------+
>>      Org maintainer
>
>
> This makes no sense at all.  It is needless busywork for the Emacs
> maintainer to integrate code from one particular contributor who is unable
> to cooperate with the maintainer of the project to which he
> contributes.  It also unnecessarily inconveniences ordinary Emacs/Org
> users, who would now face a further obstacle to simply using the
> software.  They already have to go elsewhere to get contrib/ programs
> or to use the latest version of Org; now you want to make it so that
> even the release version of Org is fractured and schismed.  That is
> totally unacceptable.

If this analysis is correct, then Jambunathan's proposal furthers his
stated purpose "to delay the release [of Org] or cause confusion".

I am concerned (perhaps out of ignorance) that Jambunathan's ability to
contribute code to Org might be used to the same effect.

Because I am keen to know that my investment in Org is being suitably
protected, could someone assure me either that my concern is unfounded,
i.e., that code contributed by Jambunathan can be successfully vetted so
that it doesn't delay development or cause confusion, or that
appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that future code
contributions from Jambunathan will not become part of Org?

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: A proposal (ox-html.el/ox-odt.el)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 12.03.2013 19:38, schrieb Thomas S. Dye:
>
>
> Aloha all,
>
> wgreenhouse-sGOZH3hwPm2sTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org (W. Greenhouse)
> writes:
>
>> Jambunathan,
>>
>> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> writes:
>>
>>> People are disregarding my "moral rights" over my work and pushing me in
>>> a corner to act a certain way to serve their own interests.  This I feel
>>> is plain wrong and an act of snatching or appropriation.
>>>
>>> Jambunathan K.
>>
>> Moral right and copyright are unrelated concepts.  In the jurisdictions
>> that recognize "author's moral right" or "droit moral" (much of the EU
>> and other civil-code countries), such right is non-assignable and would
>> not even be affected by the FSF papers.  However, in the jurisdictions
>> where copyright is assignable, it has nothing to do with author's moral
>> right.
>>
>> If we're going to discuss "moral right" in the less legalistic and more
>> broad sense of your rights in an ethical society as a person with
>> agency, I think you're disregarding the rights of prior contributors to
>> the ox-html program, of which you were but one of many.  Those
>> contributors did intend the code to become part of Emacs, and, morally
>> as well as legally, you entered into an agreement to further that aim
>> when you decided to work on it.  If you really do intend to take your
>> ball and go home, do please call a fork a fork--and also do please
>> recognize that you are the one "snatching" or "appropriating" a joint
>> work out of your own sense of pique.
>>
>>> I want to fork ox-html.el and ox-odt.el (as it stands today in Org repo)
>>> to GNU ELPA repo.  I request that Emacs maintainers recognize the GNU
>>> ELPA version (maintained by me) as the authoritative official versions
>>> of these files that gets bundled with SUMO Emacs.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>    Jambunathan
>>>      +---------------+
>>>      |  ox-html.el   +---  push               Emacs maintainer
>>>      |  ox-odt.el    |   \-----
>>>      |  GNU ELPA     |         \-----    +--------------------+
>>>      |               |               \-->|                    |
>>>      +---------------+                   | lisp/org/ox-html.el|
>>>             ^  Push                      | lisp/org/ox-odt.el |
>>>             |                            |                    |
>>>             |                            +--------------------+
>>>             |                            | Other org files    |
>>>      +------+---------+               /->|                    |
>>>      |                |           /---   |                    |
>>>      |     Org repo   |      /----       |                    |
>>>      |                |  /---            +--------------------+
>>>      |                +--  push
>>>      |                |
>>>      |                |
>>>      +----------------+
>>>       Org maintainer
>>
>>
>> This makes no sense at all.  It is needless busywork for the Emacs
>> maintainer to integrate code from one particular contributor who is unable
>> to cooperate with the maintainer of the project to which he
>> contributes.  It also unnecessarily inconveniences ordinary Emacs/Org
>> users, who would now face a further obstacle to simply using the
>> software.  They already have to go elsewhere to get contrib/ programs
>> or to use the latest version of Org; now you want to make it so that
>> even the release version of Org is fractured and schismed.  That is
>> totally unacceptable.
>
> If this analysis is correct, then Jambunathan's proposal furthers his
> stated purpose "to delay the release [of Org] or cause confusion".
>
> I am concerned (perhaps out of ignorance) that Jambunathan's ability to
> contribute code to Org might be used to the same effect.
>
> Because I am keen to know that my investment in Org is being suitably
> protected, could someone assure me either that my concern is unfounded,
> i.e., that code contributed by Jambunathan can be successfully vetted so
> that it doesn't delay development or cause confusion, or that
> appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that future code
> contributions from Jambunathan will not become part of Org?
>
> All the best,
> Tom
>

Hi Tom,

while not being

Re: A proposal (ox-html.el/ox-odt.el)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 12.03.2013 19:38, schrieb Thomas S. Dye:
>
>
> Aloha all,
>
> wgreenhouse-sGOZH3hwPm2sTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org (W. Greenhouse)
> writes:
>
>> Jambunathan,
>>
>> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> writes:
>>
>>> People are disregarding my "moral rights" over my work and pushing me in
>>> a corner to act a certain way to serve their own interests.  This I feel
>>> is plain wrong and an act of snatching or appropriation.
>>>
>>> Jambunathan K.
>>
>> Moral right and copyright are unrelated concepts.  In the jurisdictions
>> that recognize "author's moral right" or "droit moral" (much of the EU
>> and other civil-code countries), such right is non-assignable and would
>> not even be affected by the FSF papers.  However, in the jurisdictions
>> where copyright is assignable, it has nothing to do with author's moral
>> right.
>>
>> If we're going to discuss "moral right" in the less legalistic and more
>> broad sense of your rights in an ethical society as a person with
>> agency, I think you're disregarding the rights of prior contributors to
>> the ox-html program, of which you were but one of many.  Those
>> contributors did intend the code to become part of Emacs, and, morally
>> as well as legally, you entered into an agreement to further that aim
>> when you decided to work on it.  If you really do intend to take your
>> ball and go home, do please call a fork a fork--and also do please
>> recognize that you are the one "snatching" or "appropriating" a joint
>> work out of your own sense of pique.
>>
>>> I want to fork ox-html.el and ox-odt.el (as it stands today in Org repo)
>>> to GNU ELPA repo.  I request that Emacs maintainers recognize the GNU
>>> ELPA version (maintained by me) as the authoritative official versions
>>> of these files that gets bundled with SUMO Emacs.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>    Jambunathan
>>>      +---------------+
>>>      |  ox-html.el   +---  push               Emacs maintainer
>>>      |  ox-odt.el    |   \-----
>>>      |  GNU ELPA     |         \-----    +--------------------+
>>>      |               |               \-->|                    |
>>>      +---------------+                   | lisp/org/ox-html.el|
>>>             ^  Push                      | lisp/org/ox-odt.el |
>>>             |                            |                    |
>>>             |                            +--------------------+
>>>             |                            | Other org files    |
>>>      +------+---------+               /->|                    |
>>>      |                |           /---   |                    |
>>>      |     Org repo   |      /----       |                    |
>>>      |                |  /---            +--------------------+
>>>      |                +--  push
>>>      |                |
>>>      |                |
>>>      +----------------+
>>>       Org maintainer
>>
>>
>> This makes no sense at all.  It is needless busywork for the Emacs
>> maintainer to integrate code from one particular contributor who is unable
>> to cooperate with the maintainer of the project to which he
>> contributes.  It also unnecessarily inconveniences ordinary Emacs/Org
>> users, who would now face a further obstacle to simply using the
>> software.  They already have to go elsewhere to get contrib/ programs
>> or to use the latest version of Org; now you want to make it so that
>> even the release version of Org is fractured and schismed.  That is
>> totally unacceptable.
>
> If this analysis is correct, then Jambunathan's proposal furthers his
> stated purpose "to delay the release [of Org] or cause confusion".
>
> I am concerned (perhaps out of ignorance) that Jambunathan's ability to
> contribute code to Org might be used to the same effect.
>
> Because I am keen to know that my investment in Org is being suitably
> protected, could someone assure me either that my concern is unfounded,
> i.e., that code contributed by Jambunathan can be successfully vetted so
> that it doesn't delay development or cause confusion, or that
> appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that future code
> contributions from Jambunathan will not become part of Org?
>
> All the best,
> Tom
>

Hi Tom,

while not being pleased by Jambunathan's behavior already in earlier times,
we should not weight words uttered in rage more.

Moreover, it might be possible we misunderstood the real message so far.
It might be buried in an explanation given later on:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-02/msg00743.html

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> On 12.3.2013, at 03:33, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Jambunathan is claiming that he has not yet designated this work as
>> within the scope of Emacs, but he may be ignorant of the legal
>> implications of committing code to certain repositories.  On the other
>> hand, a court might construe his ignorance to mean that no intent to
>> contribute was present.
>
> It is easy to see and prove that the intent from day on was to become
> part of Emacs.  

An intent to act certain way is not the act itself.  The intent has to
be un-equivocally established and stand third party scrutiny
irrespective of what parties to dispute claim.  I say that I am changing
my intent.  It is *my* intent right and I should seek your approval for
it? Absurd, I say.

I *didn't* move the file from ./contrib/ to lisp/ in Org repo.  Contrib
files are for all practical purposes non-Emacs files. Bastien didn't
consult me while moving those files.  Prove me wrong, I will accept
defeat and walk away.

How can anyone even claim all-your-code-written-or-unwritten-is-mine.  I
 have signed my contract for a nominal $1 exchange.
 all-your-code-written-or-unwritten-is-mine-as-long-as-you-say-otherwise
 should be the spirit.

People are disregarding my "moral rights" over my work and pushing me in
a corner to act a certain way to serve their own interests.  This I feel
is plain wrong and an act of snatching or appropriation.

Jambunathan K.

-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Subhan Tindall]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
> Subhan Tindall writes:
>
>  > Ah, I may see your error here Jambunathan.  Copyright becomes attached
>  > to a work the moment in time it is created (at least in the US),
>
> In any jurisdiction implementing the Berne Convention.
True, my assumptions here are that US law are the dominant ones in this case.
>
>  > and publication has no bearing on it's existence or assignment.
>  > The assignment of rights for "changes and enhancements to the
>  > program " <insert progname here> covers the rights to created
>  > material from *the moment the code is written*,
>
> No, that's false.  Copyright law knows nothing of whether the material
> was written "to be part of", or even contains parts of, Emacs[1], and
> therefore a generic assignment cannot cover code until it is
> contributed *to* Emacs, explicitly by the author inserting a "part of
> Emacs" statement, explicitly by substituting the FSF for himself in
> the copyright notice, or (perhaps, I'm not sure what would happen if
> you maintained your own copyright notice in this case) implicitly by
> committing it personally to a repository of code (not necessarily a
> VCS, but any archive) that is considered "part of Emacs."  (You are
> correct in that distribution of the code or presence in "the official"
> Emacs repo are not necessary, of course.)
>
> For example, the FSF has no claim on my ~/.xemacs/init.el, though it
> contains generic enhancements to XEmacs (the code base for which my
> assignment was explicitly designated) that I will probably contribute
> in the future.
>
> On the contrary, I could write an accounting program in 6502
> assembler, send appropriate documentation to the FSF copyright clerk
> indicating that I consider it to be part of (my version of ;-) XEmacs,
> and my assignment for that program would take effect.
>
> I don't claim that either of these extreme examples is at all similar
> to the cases of ox-html and ox-odt.
Again, all true, *copyright* law does not hold any concept of intent.  However,
the *assignment of copyright* in the FSF contract does cary an
implication of intent. The 'reasonable person' standard
of determining intent would be potentially relevant here as follows:
1) work is created - copyright (in US) immediately comes into existence
2) previously signed FSF copyright assignment form potentially
transfers copyright for works created
to be included in X
3) question: was work created with intent to be included in X? if so,
than transfer in 2) applies
4) if disputed, one important test to apply is the 'reasonable person'
standard - what would a reasonable person
judge the intent in 1) to be?
Example.
I sign a copyright assignment form in order to work on project X. I
then write code to enhance or fix errors in X.
A reasonable person would most likely determine that my intent was add
this code to project X, therefore
my copyright was transferred upon it's creation as part of the
contract I signed.

>
>  > A similar situation is a work made for hire.
>
> Yes, it is similar to a work made for hire in that the scope of the
> work for hire is specified, either in a standalone contract, or by
> order of your employer.
>
> Jambunathan is claiming that he has not yet designated this work as
> within the scope of Emacs, but he may be ignorant of the legal
> implications of committing code to certain repositories.  On the other
> hand, a court might construe his ignorance to mean that no intent to
> contribute was present.  I think that's strained; at the present time
> org-mode code is "tracked" to be included in Emacs and I suppose he
> knew that when he committed.  But AFAIK -- IANAL/TINLA -- a court
> *might* be sympathetic to him.
Again, see 'reasonable person' standard.
>
>  > For example, I work on many programs for my employer.  As part of
>  > my contract, all copyright for that work is ceded to my employer.
>
> Correct in the U.S., I believe, but that is an employment contract,
> and a quite different matter, because it covers *your professional
> activities* and the product *of those activities* (in some cases, 24
> hours a day whether on premises or not).  An assignment of Emacs code,
> extant and to be written, to the FSF is *not* an employment contract.
> It is merely a convenient way to perform an indefinite number of
> assignments with one signature (at least, that's what my lawyer told
> me).
Not so different.  The FSF copyright assignment is a legally binding
contract, and should
be treated as such.  It's not just a convenience.
>
>
> Footnotes:
> [1]  Of course the "parts of Emacs" are presumably copyright FSF, *but
> the changes and enhancements are not* (yet).
>



-- 
Subhan Michael Tindall | Software Developer
| smt@rentrakmail.com
RENTRAK | www.rentrak.com | NASDAQ: RENT

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Subhan Tindall <subhan.tindall@rentrakmail.com> writes:

> A reasonable person would most likely determine that my intent was add
> this code to project X, therefore my copyright was transferred upon
> it's creation as part of the contract I signed.

My contention is, I transfer assignments unless I state otherwise.  So
future assignment is really an optimization where the paperwork is
minimized both at FSF and at developers side.

The other alternative will be to assign copyright on a per-patch basis.
If this were the case, I for one will have less incentive to contribute
lots of small improvements and FSF staff will be ending up too much
paperwork.

I am arguing from common-sense.

If FSF snatches away my assignments without giving me an option to
exercise an exception to assignment, I swear I would rather not
contribute to or use FSF-endorsed software.

Let's be practical.  Text-editors are dime a dozen.  I have seen and
used better source editors than Emacs.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Btw, People aren't reasonable.  That's why their behaviour have to be
regulated by contracts and punishments agreed upon and enforced from
without so that there can be some control over the outcome of an
engagement.

----------------------------------------------------------------

There is intent and there is an event which effects the intent.  Both
the intent and the act are important.  Future assingment is merely an
intent and comes in to effect when I commit to Emacs repo.


Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Subhan Tindall writes:

 > Example.
 > I sign a copyright assignment form in order to work on project X. I
 > then write code to enhance or fix errors in X.
 > A reasonable person would most likely determine that my intent was add
 > this code to project X, therefore
 > my copyright was transferred upon it's creation as part of the
 > contract I signed.

Not at all.  Your intent (for values of "you" != you, I expect) might
very well be a fork, not a contribution.  I do that all the time,
creating works intended only for my private use, or that I want to
maintain control of until I'm satisfied with them.  "Upon creation" is
not tenable.

OTOH, there's a serious practical problem with your claim that code
that can be used with Emacs is automatically subject to an existing
"current and future code" assignment.  Namely, that would be grounds
for the FSF to subpoena my ~/.xemacs/init.el to search for their
"property".  A dollar I never received is surely insufficient
compensation for that!

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[William Gardella]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen-Sn97VrDLz2sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> writes:

> Subhan Tindall writes:
>
>  > Example.
>  > I sign a copyright assignment form in order to work on project X. I
>  > then write code to enhance or fix errors in X.
>  > A reasonable person would most likely determine that my intent was add
>  > this code to project X, therefore
>  > my copyright was transferred upon it's creation as part of the
>  > contract I signed.
>
> Not at all.  Your intent (for values of "you" != you, I expect) might
> very well be a fork, not a contribution.  I do that all the time,
> creating works intended only for my private use, or that I want to
> maintain control of until I'm satisfied with them.  "Upon creation" is
> not tenable.

It's also not the situation at hand here.  Jambunathan did not just
privately create some files to be used "with Emacs," but committed them
to the Org repos.  The main part of org consists of files to which
copyright is already assigned to the FSF.

> Org is made of many files. Most of them are also distributed as part of
> GNU Emacs. These files are called the Org core, and they are all
> copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, Inc. If you consider
> contributing to these files, your first need to grant the right to
> include your works in GNU Emacs to the FSF. For this you need to
> complete this form, send it to assign-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org, and tell the Org-mode
> maintainer when this process is complete. Some people consider this a
> hassle. I don't want to discuss this in detail here - there are some
> good reasons for getting the copyright registered, an example is
> discussed in this FLOSS weekly podcast. Furthermore, by playing
> according to the Emacs rules, we gain the fantastic advantage that every
> version of Emacs ships with Org-mode already fully built in. So please
> consider doing this - it makes our work as maintainers so much easier,
> because we can then take your patches without any additional work.

> If you want to learn more about why copyright assignments are collected,
> read this: Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors?
http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html

The `ox-html' library complained about is the "new" version of the "old"
HTML exporter, and as such is a revision of an already properly assigned
"Org core" file.  An important one, at that, until everyone is ready to
use the new exporters in Org 8.0.  What's more, Jambunathan hacked on
this file without complaining about the copyright assignment, seemingly
until about 10 March.  It's an extant Org core file, already in current
Emacs releases under another name.

-- 
Regards,
WGG

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Richard Stallman]

Our normal future assignment contract covers all changes to Emacs.
Whether it is considered a "contribution" or a "fork" is not a
criterion.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Dmitry Gutov]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Our normal future assignment contract covers all changes to Emacs.
> Whether it is considered a "contribution" or a "fork" is not a
> criterion.

At what point does a piece of code or a diff become a "change to Emacs"?

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Richard Stallman]

    At what point does a piece of code or a diff become a "change to Emacs"?

A diff for Emacs is always a change to Emacs.
I will think about the questions raised by a separate Lisp file.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     At what point does a piece of code or a diff become a "change to Emacs"?
>
> A diff for Emacs is always a change to Emacs.
> I will think about the questions raised by a separate Lisp file.

As an impartial observer, I think the phrase - "diff for Emacs" -
(including a whole new file) requires further qualification.  See below.

I have been tracking the following story
        http://lwn.net/Articles/543339/#Comments

Therein, Bradley M. Kuhn (bkuhn) has the following to say.  I quote,

    > Speaking as a member of FSF's Board of Directors, I can tell you
    > that the FSF copyright assignment agreement is under near-constant
    > review, and has been for decades. The agreement can be canceled by
    > the developer and further changes made thereafter wouldn't be
    > assigned.

    > It sounds to me like Jambunathan is exploring whether or not he
    > wants to cancel this assignment. That's his right, but it's
    > interesting to note that Jambunathan hasn't canceled
    > yet. Presumably, he is exploring the cost-benefit analysis as to
    > whether he'd like his new code to continue to be concluded in the
    > FSF's canonical distribution of Emacs or not.

I have no intention of cancelling my copyright assignment for Emacs
(unilaterally from my side).  I have no doubts that my patches are
useful to me and also a broad audience.

I think it is only right that a developer request that some of his work
be excluded from assignment with prior notice to copyright clerk.  Emacs
is a suite.  The intention of future assignment is merely a logistical
convenience.  

Personally, I don't want to support Org-mode developement under the
maintainership of Bastien Guerry.  The fact that I am doing pro-bono
work doesn't mean that I give others the right to step on me like "a
door mat".

    > Anyway, it's unfortunate the Corbet's article above doesn't
    > reiterate the advantages of assigning to FSF to
    > developers. Specifically, the FSF takes on the obligation of being
    > the publisher of the code (which can sometimes be a dangerous act in
    > today's world), and also, FSF handles enforcement of the GPL for the
    > codebase. Finally, FSF gives a liberal license back to the developer
    > (i.e., Jambunathan could have always made proprietary software out
    > of his own assigned works after doing the assignment), and FSF
    > further promises never to publish a proprietary version of the
    > software itself.

If I can make a proprietary version out of (prior) assigned work, then
saying "diff for Emacs" belong to Emacs seems a bit inconsistent.  

So, a "diff for Emacs or the suite", in and of itself, is devoid of any
meaning without further qualification.

    > Finally, given the liberal license grant-back and the realities of
    > the general nature of private changes, the comment in the article
    > about what happens with private changes seems like a red herring to
    > me.

Btw, I didn't receive $1 or GNU stickers.  Other contributors seem to
have received these "considerations".  I would have loved to get these!

Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[W. Greenhouse]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> writes:

> I have no intention of cancelling my copyright assignment for Emacs
> (unilaterally from my side).  

That's news.

>  I have no doubts that my patches are useful to me and also a broad
> audience.
>
> I think it is only right that a developer request that some of his work
> be excluded from assignment with prior notice to copyright clerk.  Emacs
> is a suite.  The intention of future assignment is merely a logistical
> convenience.  
>
> Personally, I don't want to support Org-mode developement under the
> maintainership of Bastien Guerry.  The fact that I am doing pro-bono
> work doesn't mean that I give others the right to step on me like "a
> door mat".

I don't think I or anyone else is disputing your right to cancel your
assignment.  However, your words created the perception that you were
attempting to inconvenience Emacs by slowing Org's integration into the
next Emacs release--neither cancelling nor not cancelling, but simply
creating a miasma of FUD around your code.  You've now clarified that
you are no longer doing this, which is a relief.

As bkuhn indicated in the post you linked, you have the right to cancel
your assignment at any time.  You also have the right not to work on Org
ever again.  You do not have the right to sit in the middle of the road
to obstruct development because you don't like the maintainer.  As Eli
observed, the appropriate remedy for irreconcilable differences is to
fork.  Please do so if you wish; the Emacs community practically
invented forking.

> If I can make a proprietary version out of (prior) assigned work, then
> saying "diff for Emacs" belong to Emacs seems a bit inconsistent.  

> So, a "diff for Emacs or the suite", in and of itself, is devoid of any
> meaning without further qualification.

I am not sure how the FSF wishes to play this, but in copyright terms,
"[the default distribution of] Emacs" is a compilation of many works
independently copyrightable.  Compilations can get copyright protection
as such, and the protection accorded to, e.g., a journal, or a volume of
several monographs with different authors and one editor, is not "devoid
of meaning."  By Org's policies as a project, most of Org with the
exception of contrib/ requires assignment in order to be included in the
compilation.

But you understand all this already, I expect, as your delaying tactics
seem to have been based on a sophisticated knowledge of the harm and
inconvenience you would be causing to Org users.

> Btw, I didn't receive $1 or GNU stickers.  Other contributors seem to
> have received these "considerations".  I would have loved to get these!

If that would've prevented all this, then I'm really sorry it didn't
happen.

-- 
Regards,
WGG

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Richard

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>     At what point does a piece of code or a diff become a "change to Emacs"?
>
> A diff for Emacs is always a change to Emacs.
> I will think about the questions raised by a separate Lisp file.

I was thinking (more) about your response.  It opens two problems.

1. "Future Assignment" as an annexation policy rather than as a defence.

2. Artificial polarization (of people) by having "assigned" or
   "unassigned" contributors .  IMO, there should only be "assigned
   work" and "unassigned work" (or "acquired" and "unacquired" work).
   It's the work that is polarized and not the people. 

I am taking "Developer's initiative" to report "work convered by this
contract" and it seems like my act is viewed as a taboo.  See Item 2 of
the assignment contract which says:

    | 2. Developer will report occasionally, on Developer’s initiative and
    |    whenever requested by FSF, the changes and/ or enhancements which are
    |    covered by this contract, and (to the extent known to Developer) any
    |    outstanding rights, or claims of rights, of any person, that might be
    |    adverse to the rights of Developer or FSF or to the purpose of this
    |    contract.

I wish that FSF being a non-commercial entity be forthcoming with
information on how I can withhold or terminate an assignment.  For
example, my Cable TV provider advertizes how I can subscribe via SMS to
a paid movie channel.  But he never discloses (readily) how I can
un-subscribe from the subscribed channels.

Just my 2 cents.

Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Allen S. Rout]

On 04/01/2013 05:35 PM, Jambunathan K wrote:
> 
> 2. Artificial polarization (of people) by having "assigned" or
>    "unassigned" contributors .  IMO, there should only be "assigned
>    work" and "unassigned work" (or "acquired" and "unacquired" work).
>    It's the work that is polarized and not the people. 


A major problem with this approach is that it requires the repeated
assertion of assignment for every aliquot of work.

I'm a long-term user and observer, not an historian; but it is my
impression that yours is the first case in which that sort of
granularity has ever been thought relevant.

I think that, since you have clearly thought about this for some time,
you might draft an amended assignment, in which you would provide an
example of how you would specify the "Work" for which you are assigning.
 That would place the extra bookkeeping load on you, not on the other
members of the community, who don't seem to see the need.

With that tool in hand, you could accurately express your precisely
delineated participation in the community.

n.b.:  If you came with that to a project I ran, I would (politely, I
hope) turn you away.   But our understanding would be clear.



- Allen S. Rout

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Richard Stallman]

If a contributor wants to specify precisely which changes are assigned,
he, she or it can talk with the FSF about it.  We can work something out.
However, we'd prefer to be able to use all of someone's changes without
specific arrangements.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Richard

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> If a contributor wants to specify precisely which changes are assigned,
> he, she or it can talk with the FSF about it.  We can work something out.
> However, we'd prefer to be able to use all of someone's changes without
> specific arrangements.

Assigned unless declared otherwise seems very practical.  I can put it
to some use (to my own ends).

I am willing to send patches against Emacs Bzr trunk [1].  But, I need
to be personally convinced that my patches will be diligently and
dispassionately considered.

I admit that my exercising of a right - right to not assign - is not
without collateral damages.  I regret these damages, but I have no means
to express my disapproval of ... in a *substantial* way so that is
getting noticed.

I do want my changes to be in Emacs (ultimately) but not the immediate
major release or until the circumstances change.

Footnotes:

[1] The patches are most likely to be minor changes addressing areas
that annoys me.  I have some bugs that I have lined up already in
debbbugs.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Bastien]

Jambunathan,

I'm quoting: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/69536

> Advice for potential contributors: 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> Think before signing a Future Assignment.  Why write a blank cheque and
> have RMS run behind you with "this is a diff to Emacs and all your code
> is mine."

This is not a fair thing to say.

If you want to continue showing disrespect for Emacs authors and
contributors, take these remarks out of the GNU mailing lists.

Past contributions don't buy you a right to waste Emacs contributors
time.  As for future contributions, I strongly recommend the community
not to accept any of them.

Bye,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Jambunathan,
>
> I'm quoting: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/69536
>
>> Advice for potential contributors: 
>> ----------------------------------
>> 
>> Think before signing a Future Assignment.  Why write a blank cheque and
>> have RMS run behind you with "this is a diff to Emacs and all your code
>> is mine."
>
> This is not a fair thing to say.

What is wrong if I ask people to think for themselves.  I did not say
"Refrain", I said "Think".  That remark was made *before* Richard's mail
stating that FSF is willing to consider selective non-assignment.

> If you want to continue showing disrespect for Emacs authors and
> contributors, take these remarks out of the GNU mailing lists.

I will not leave without also trying to take my code out.

> Past contributions don't buy you a right to waste Emacs contributors
> time.  As for future contributions, I strongly recommend the community
> not to accept any of them.

Question is about my changes to ox-html.el and ox-odt.el.  What is your
answer?  I haven't got an actionable answer.

> Bye,

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 03.04.2013 10:16, schrieb Jambunathan K:

Hi Jambunathan,

what about making a honorable peace? Not the kind of capitulation :)

AFAIU the very reasons are beyond Emacs. You started to address them in your second or third posting at org-mode.
It's not Bastien and also it's not you.
To discuss the very reasons at some suitable place, maybe we need a person like Arundhati Roy to negotiate.

Don't know, if she uses Emacs.
Maybe ask her? Really! :)

Cheers,

Andreas

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Bastien]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:

> AFAIU the very reasons are beyond Emacs.

Im my opinion, they are far below Emacs.

One upset ego tries to inflate the personal issue at stake and
to make everyone believes there is a legal issue while there is
none.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 03.04.2013 10:46, schrieb Bastien:
> Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:
>
>> AFAIU the very reasons are beyond Emacs.
>
> Im my opinion, they are far below Emacs.
>
> One upset ego tries to inflate the personal issue at stake

Hmm, always felt Emacs a very special community with a lot of strong personalities.
Still like it :)

  and
> to make everyone believes there is a legal issue while there is
> none.
>

Wherefrom the eagerness to remove Jambus's code then?
Seems more people believe that, even if it's wrong wrt GPL.

Beyond GPL,  only FSF-clerk knows the conditions of the very assignment.
That's the point where a kind of power-process starts, what's recognised so far...

Cheers

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

() Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>
() Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:23:21 +0200

   Wherefrom the eagerness to remove Jambus's code then?
   Seems more people believe that, even if it's wrong wrt GPL.

The GPL exists to serve a social movement centered around sharing.
Releasing code under the GPL and then agitating to unshare that
(and/or future) code works against both the spirit of that movement
and the efforts of its supporters.

It's no surprise then that people perceive continuing engagement as
more effort than necessary on their part, and cannot maintain the
stoicism that considering only the GPL allows.

Writing this took a few minutes, reading it, slightly less.
Did i add/subtract/multiply/divide, or just compound the mess?

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
GPG key: 4C807502

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 03.04.2013 11:58, schrieb Thien-Thi Nguyen:
> () Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>
> () Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:23:21 +0200
>
>     Wherefrom the eagerness to remove Jambus's code then?
>     Seems more people believe that, even if it's wrong wrt GPL.
>
> The GPL exists to serve a social movement centered around sharing.
> Releasing code under the GPL and then agitating to unshare that
> (and/or future) code works against both the spirit of that movement
> and the efforts of its supporters.
>
> It's no surprise then that people perceive continuing engagement as
> more effort than necessary on their part, and cannot maintain the
> stoicism that considering only the GPL allows.
>
> Writing this took a few minutes, reading it, slightly less.
> Did i add/subtract/multiply/divide, or just compound the mess?
>

Indeed the social is at stake. Unlike antic computers, we must not take input as is, but interpret in it's range.
Some person said he wants to hurt?

If these words are all we know, than it might be done.
However, can some words pronounced in seconds --even if repeated-- outweigh a dedication of years?

If Jambunathan would be that selfish person as depicted, he'd rather worked in some usury-business than writing Emacs Lisp code.

The mistake is elsewhere

Andreas

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org> writes:

> () Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>
> () Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:23:21 +0200
>
>    Wherefrom the eagerness to remove Jambus's code then?
>    Seems more people believe that, even if it's wrong wrt GPL.
>
> The GPL exists to serve a social movement centered around sharing.
> Releasing code under the GPL and then agitating to unshare that
> (and/or future) code works against both the spirit of that movement
> and the efforts of its supporters.

I haven't unshared anything.

I am un-willing to allow the users of Org mode to enjoy the privileges
of my changes within the comforts of Emacs.  That's it.

So the changes will still continue to be shared and it won't be via
Emacs.

> It's no surprise then that people perceive continuing engagement as
> more effort than necessary on their part, and cannot maintain the
> stoicism that considering only the GPL allows.
>
> Writing this took a few minutes, reading it, slightly less.
> Did i add/subtract/multiply/divide, or just compound the mess?

Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:09:30 +0530
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > () Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>
> > () Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:23:21 +0200
> >
> >    Wherefrom the eagerness to remove Jambus's code then?
> >    Seems more people believe that, even if it's wrong wrt GPL.
> >
> > The GPL exists to serve a social movement centered around sharing.
> > Releasing code under the GPL and then agitating to unshare that
> > (and/or future) code works against both the spirit of that movement
> > and the efforts of its supporters.
> 
> I haven't unshared anything.

Yes, you have.

> I am un-willing to allow the users of Org mode to enjoy the privileges
> of my changes within the comforts of Emacs.  That's it.

That's "unsharing" in my book.

I hope you realize that it's against the GPL spirit, and possibly also
the letter (IANAL), to restrict use of Free Software like that.  Once
you start on this slippery path, your code is not longer free.

> So the changes will still continue to be shared and it won't be via
> Emacs.

A.k.a. "non-free software".

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:09:30 +0530
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > () Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>
>> > () Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:23:21 +0200
>> >
>> >    Wherefrom the eagerness to remove Jambus's code then?
>> >    Seems more people believe that, even if it's wrong wrt GPL.
>> >
>> > The GPL exists to serve a social movement centered around sharing.
>> > Releasing code under the GPL and then agitating to unshare that
>> > (and/or future) code works against both the spirit of that movement
>> > and the efforts of its supporters.
>> 
>> I haven't unshared anything.
>
> Yes, you have.
>
>> I am un-willing to allow the users of Org mode to enjoy the privileges
>> of my changes within the comforts of Emacs.  That's it.
>
> That's "unsharing" in my book.

From this distance, it is unclear if the book that you are holding is
the one maintained by FSF.

> I hope you realize that it's against the GPL spirit, and possibly also
> the letter (IANAL), to restrict use of Free Software like that.  Once
> you start on this slippery path, your code is not longer free.

I want to go back to the 4 definitions what constitutes a Free Software.

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

Yes, for this.

* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
  your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
  precondition for this.

Yes, for this.

* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
  (freedom 2).

Yes, for this.

* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
  (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance
  to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a
  precondition for this.

Yes, for this.

>> So the changes will still continue to be shared and it won't be via
>> Emacs.
>
> A.k.a. "non-free software".

I not preventing Emacs from making use of it.  I will retain the right
to my changes.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Cc: ttn@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:39:43 +0530
> 
> I want to go back to the 4 definitions what constitutes a Free Software.
> 
> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> 
> Yes, for this.

But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.

> * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
>   your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
>   precondition for this.
> 
> Yes, for this.

But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.

> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>   (freedom 2).
> 
> Yes, for this.

But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.

> * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
>   (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance
>   to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a
>   precondition for this.
> 
> Yes, for this.

But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.

> >> So the changes will still continue to be shared and it won't be via
> >> Emacs.
> >
> > A.k.a. "non-free software".
> 
> I not preventing Emacs from making use of it.

You prevent _users_ from exercising fundamental freedoms available
with Free Software.  You software is thus non-free when distributed
under those restrictions.

> I will retain the right to my changes.

That's a non-issue; an author always retains his rights.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
>> Cc: ttn@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:39:43 +0530
>> 
>> I want to go back to the 4 definitions what constitutes a Free Software.
>> 
>> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>> 
>> Yes, for this.
>
> But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.

I have nothing against Org project bundling it.  I have nothing against
Emacs bundling it.

>> * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
>>   your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
>>   precondition for this.
>> 
>> Yes, for this.
>
> But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.

I have nothing against Org project bundling it.  I have nothing against
Emacs bundling it.

>> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>>   (freedom 2).
>> 
>> Yes, for this.
>
> But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.

I have nothing against Org project bundling it.  I have nothing against
Emacs bundling it.

>> * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
>>   (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance
>>   to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a
>>   precondition for this.
>> 
>> Yes, for this.
>
> But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.
>
>> >> So the changes will still continue to be shared and it won't be via
>> >> Emacs.
>> >
>> > A.k.a. "non-free software".
>> 
>> I not preventing Emacs from making use of it.
>
> You prevent _users_ from exercising fundamental freedoms available
> with Free Software.  You software is thus non-free when distributed
> under those restrictions.
>
>> I will retain the right to my changes.
>
> That's a non-issue; an author always retains his rights.

I am not assigning my rights to FSF. 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Cc: ttn@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:55:32 +0530
> 
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: ttn@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:39:43 +0530
> >> 
> >> I want to go back to the 4 definitions what constitutes a Free Software.
> >> 
> >> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> >> 
> >> Yes, for this.
> >
> > But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.
> 
> I have nothing against Org project bundling it.  I have nothing against
> Emacs bundling it.

Then please explain, preferably in small words, what does thus mean:

> I am un-willing to allow the users of Org mode to enjoy the privileges
> of my changes within the comforts of Emacs.

What exactly is it that you do not allow users of Org mode to do?

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Timur Aydin]

On 4/3/2013 7:36 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> Then please explain, preferably in small words, what does thus mean:
>
>> I am un-willing to allow the users of Org mode to enjoy the privileges
>> of my changes within the comforts of Emacs.
>
> What exactly is it that you do not allow users of Org mode to do?
>

He wants to punish Org mode users, but he knows that he can't prevent 
GPL projects from using it. Therefore, he is taking advantage of the 
fact that Emacs doesn't take code unless a copyright is assigned. And he 
is hurrying, because once the new Org code is in Emacs bazaar, it's too 
late. So he must revoke his copyright assignment with the FSF as soon as 
possible.

-- 
Timur

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
>> Cc: ttn@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:55:32 +0530
>> 
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> >> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
>> >> Cc: ttn@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> >> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:39:43 +0530
>> >> 
>> >> I want to go back to the 4 definitions what constitutes a Free Software.
>> >> 
>> >> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, for this.
>> >
>> > But only if not in Org mode or not through Emacs.  That's a NO.
>> 
>> I have nothing against Org project bundling it.  I have nothing against
>> Emacs bundling it.
>
> Then please explain, preferably in small words, what does thus mean:
>
>> I am un-willing to allow the users of Org mode to enjoy the privileges
>> of my changes within the comforts of Emacs.
>
> What exactly is it that you do not allow users of Org mode to do?

I am saying only two things:

1. ox-html.el and ox-odt.el are Free Software
2. Rights to *my* changes is not assigned to FSF.

I say 1 and assert 2.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Now you tell me
what I mean.

Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:13:42 +0530
> 
> Now you tell me what I mean.

Mike life a tat harder for everyone around you?

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:13:42 +0530
>> 
>> Now you tell me what I mean.
>
> Mike life a tat harder for everyone around you?

1. M-x browse-url-emacs RET http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html RET
2. C-s life RET

Only hit I am getting is `proliferation'.  

Could you please tell me how your question is related to Free Software?

Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:34:33 +0530
> 
> Could you please tell me how your question is related to Free Software?

It's not a question.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:34:33 +0530
>> 
>> Could you please tell me how your question is related to Free Software?
>
> It's not a question.

Whatever.

Tell me why my work is not a Free Software.

Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:50:37 +0530
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Tell me why my work is not a Free Software.

Because it restricts freedom of its users.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:50:37 +0530
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> Tell me why my work is not a Free Software.
>
> Because it restricts freedom of its users.

Again, which of the 4 freedoms and what is the restriction that you are
talking about.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:14:20 +0530
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:50:37 +0530
> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> 
> >> Tell me why my work is not a Free Software.
> >
> > Because it restricts freedom of its users.
> 
> Again, which of the 4 freedoms and what is the restriction that you are
> talking about.

All of them.  I already said why, go and re-read if you still don't
understand.

I asked _you_ to explain because I thought you have something of
essence to say; apparently not.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > > Again, which of the 4 freedoms and what is the restriction that you are
 > > talking about.
 > 
 > All of them.  I already said why, go and re-read if you still don't
 > understand.

No, Eli, it's you that don't understand.  Software is free software if
and only if it is distributed under a free software license, by the
definition of "free software license".[1]  Jambunathan's code is
distributed under the GPL, and that is that.

Footnotes: 
[1]  Except for the corner case of software in the public domain,
which technically speaking is not under license at all, but does give
its recipients the four freedoms in full.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
> Cc: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>,
>     emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 03:27:45 +0900
> 
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> 
>  > > Again, which of the 4 freedoms and what is the restriction that you are
>  > > talking about.
>  > 
>  > All of them.  I already said why, go and re-read if you still don't
>  > understand.
> 
> No, Eli, it's you that don't understand.  Software is free software if
> and only if it is distributed under a free software license, by the
> definition of "free software license".[1]  Jambunathan's code is
> distributed under the GPL, and that is that.

You should read his messages more closely.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
 > > Cc: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>,
 > >     emacs-devel@gnu.org
 > > Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 03:27:45 +0900
 > > 
 > > Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > > 
 > >  > > Again, which of the 4 freedoms and what is the restriction
 > >  > > that you are talking about.
 > >  > 
 > >  > All of them.  I already said why, go and re-read if you still don't
 > >  > understand.
 > > 
 > > No, Eli, it's you that don't understand.  Software is free software if
 > > and only if it is distributed under a free software license, by the
 > > definition of "free software license".[1]  Jambunathan's code is
 > > distributed under the GPL, and that is that.
 > 
 > You should read his messages more closely.

His messages are a red herring.  To determine whether the software is
free, all one needs to read is -- the license.

There are many reasons why a given project doesn't use code that is
free.  The code might be under a free but incompatible license, and
the project is unwilling to switch licenses.  The code might be
redundant.

In Emacs, there are *self-imposed* non-technical restrictions on
adding software over and above software freedom.  But those are not
restrictions on freedom, even if a developer chooses to aim at them to
confound Emacs, *because* they are self-imposed.

That doesn't make Jambunathan's behavior nice, and I generally agree
with your criticism of Jambunathan's means to his ends, including the
conclusion that they may harm the growth of software freedom in the
end.  But lack of software freedom of the software itself as
distributed is not a justification for that criticism.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
> Cc: kjambunathan@gmail.com,
>     emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:49:53 +0900
> 
>  > You should read his messages more closely.
> 
> His messages are a red herring.  To determine whether the software is
> free, all one needs to read is -- the license.

See my other message: if you read through all the red herrings, you
will see that there's more than the license involved.

> There are many reasons why a given project doesn't use code that is
> free.

This is not about "the project".  This is about the restrictions
Jambunathan wishes to impose on his code's distribution.  Again,
_please_ read his messages, however unpleasant that might be.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stefan Monnier]

Could you guys stop this thread before it gets to Hitler?


        Stefan

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Germán A. Arias]

El jue, 04-04-2013 a las 03:27 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull escribió:
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> 
>  > > Again, which of the 4 freedoms and what is the restriction that you are
>  > > talking about.
>  > 
>  > All of them.  I already said why, go and re-read if you still don't
>  > understand.
> 
> No, Eli, it's you that don't understand.  Software is free software if
> and only if it is distributed under a free software license, by the
> definition of "free software license".[1]  Jambunathan's code is
> distributed under the GPL, and that is that.

If the Jambunathan's code is GPL, then I can copy, redistributed, modify
and add that code into other GPL projects, for example Emacs.

> 
> Footnotes: 
> [1]  Except for the corner case of software in the public domain,
> which technically speaking is not under license at all, but does give
> its recipients the four freedoms in full.
> 
> 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Germán "A. Arias" writes:

 > If the Jambunathan's code is GPL, then I can copy, redistributed,
 > modify and add that code into other GPL projects, for example
 > Emacs.

But that's precisely the point here.  In the case of Emacs as a
project, *you* cannot.  The project *will* reject such code, for a
reason extraneous to the GPL license.  Namely, the owner of the
copyright refuses to yield it to the FSF.

If you mean that you can distribute a fork of Emacs containing that
code without infringing either license, yes, that's true.  Or a
separate project such as XEmacs theoretically could do that, both
legally and by project policy.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
>     Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>,
>     emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:31:45 +0900
> 
> Germán "A. Arias" writes:
> 
> If you mean that you can distribute a fork of Emacs containing that
> code without infringing either license, yes, that's true.

A distribution doesn't have to be a fork.  I can make my own tarball
of Emacs any time without forking anything.  I can at that time add to
the "official" Emacs any suitably licensed code I choose.  According
to Jambunathan, I cannot include his code in such a distribution:

> I am un-willing to allow the users of Org mode to enjoy the privileges
> of my changes within the comforts of Emacs.

So it's not GPL, it's "GPL with buts", a.k.a. non-free.

(Arguably, this is my interpretation of his intentionally vague
statement above.  But given his unwillingness to explain those
restrictions, what other device do I have but interpret that in the
most extreme sense?)

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > > I am un-willing to allow the users of Org mode to enjoy the
 > > privileges of my changes within the comforts of Emacs.
 > 
 > So it's not GPL, it's "GPL with buts", a.k.a. non-free.

Only the FSF can authorize a "GPL with buts" for Jambunathan's code,
since it is derived from FSF-copyrighted code.  I rather doubt it has
done such a thing.  So the GPL is Jambunathan's decision (implicit in
his original decision to distribute his code by committing to a public
repository), but the "but" is due to Emacs' assignment policy.

Of course, Emacs is (legally and by license) free to make an exception
to the assignment policy.  But it won't, and that's what he counts on.

 > (Arguably, this is my interpretation of his intentionally vague
 > statement above.  But given his unwillingness to explain those
 > restrictions, what other device do I have but interpret that in the
 > most extreme sense?)

That shows your own ill-will, and nothing else.

The simple route is to respect the law, the license, and Emacs' self-
imposed restrictions, and interpret the situation in that light.

Emacs community crashes when I try to quit (was: Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode))

[Allen S. Rout]

A quote from a related list might be relevant here, with suitable
substitutions.


On 04/03/2013 09:22 AM, Eric Schulte wrote:

> I would suggest that further emails from Jambunathan be ignored.  The
> more effort expended "reasoning" with him, the more time wasted by
> members of the Org-mode community who are valuable contributors.
>
> Also, despite his bellicose threats, the *only* means he has to hurt the
> Org-mode community is the tool he is using now; namely trolling our
> mailing list.  Lets take this from him.


- Allen S. Rout

Re: Emacs community crashes when I try to quit

[Karl Fogel]

"Allen S. Rout" <asr@ufl.edu> writes:
>A quote from a related list might be relevant here, with suitable
>substitutions.

+1

http://www.DoNotFeedTheEnergyBeast.com/

>On 04/03/2013 09:22 AM, Eric Schulte wrote:
>
>> I would suggest that further emails from Jambunathan be ignored.  The
>> more effort expended "reasoning" with him, the more time wasted by
>> members of the Org-mode community who are valuable contributors.
>>
>> Also, despite his bellicose threats, the *only* means he has to hurt the
>> Org-mode community is the tool he is using now; namely trolling our
>> mailing list.  Lets take this from him.
>
>
>- Allen S. Rout

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[W. Greenhouse]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler-BGeptl67XyCzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> writes:

> Am 03.04.2013 10:46, schrieb Bastien:
>> Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler-BGeptl67XyCzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> writes:
>>
>>> AFAIU the very reasons are beyond Emacs.
>>
>> Im my opinion, they are far below Emacs.
>>
>> One upset ego tries to inflate the personal issue at stake
>
> Hmm, always felt Emacs a very special community with a lot of strong
> personalities.  Still like it :)
>
>  and
>> to make everyone believes there is a legal issue while there is
>> none.
>>
>
> Wherefrom the eagerness to remove Jambus's code then?
> Seems more people believe that, even if it's wrong wrt GPL.

It stems from the fact that, when someone behaves dishonorably and
doesn't keep their commitments, or tries to shirk those commitments in
order to harm others (in fact, even saying loudly that his intent is to
harm others), one should be wary of entering into an agreement with them
again.  Who is to know is, once Jambunathan revokes his general
assignment and starts doing case-by-case assignments, he won't also try
to use those to exert power over Emacs and Org development?  He probably
will.  You teach people how to treat you.

By walking away from his code, if Org chose to do that, it would only be
protecting itself from further trouble.

-- 
BOFH excuse #262:

Our POP server was kidnapped by a weasel.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Bastien]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Question is about my changes to ox-html.el and ox-odt.el.  What is your
> answer?  I haven't got an actionable answer.

These are changes against Emacs for which you signed a copyright
assignement that you cannot retroactively retract.

I read Richard's answer as: "If you want your copyright assignment
to cover only some areas of Emacs, you can discuss this with the FSF
before signing it."

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Question is about my changes to ox-html.el and ox-odt.el.  What is your
>> answer?  I haven't got an actionable answer.
>
> These are changes against Emacs for which you signed a copyright
> assignement that you cannot retroactively retract.

There was no assignment in the first place.  So question of retraction
doesn't arise at all.

> I read Richard's answer as: "If you want your copyright assignment
> to cover only some areas of Emacs, you can discuss this with the FSF
> before signing it."

You misread.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[J. David Boyd]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Question is about my changes to ox-html.el and ox-odt.el.  What is your
>>> answer?  I haven't got an actionable answer.
>>
>> These are changes against Emacs for which you signed a copyright
>> assignement that you cannot retroactively retract.
>
> There was no assignment in the first place.  So question of retraction
> doesn't arise at all.


If there was no copyright assignment, why would they ever have used your code?

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:46:24 +0530
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Jambunathan,
> >
> > I'm quoting: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/69536
> >
> >> Advice for potential contributors: 
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> 
> >> Think before signing a Future Assignment.  Why write a blank cheque and
> >> have RMS run behind you with "this is a diff to Emacs and all your code
> >> is mine."
> >
> > This is not a fair thing to say.
> 
> What is wrong if I ask people to think for themselves.  I did not say
> "Refrain", I said "Think".  That remark was made *before* Richard's mail
> stating that FSF is willing to consider selective non-assignment.

Bastien's comment clearly was to your 2nd sentence above, not to the
first.

You are changing the subject, as usual.

> Question is about my changes to ox-html.el and ox-odt.el.  What is your
> answer?  I haven't got an actionable answer.

Yes, you have, you just don't like it.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Allen S. Rout]

On 03/13/2013 02:32 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Our normal future assignment contract covers all changes to Emacs. 
> Whether it is considered a "contribution" or a "fork" is not a 
> criterion.

It might be appropriate to articulate the procedure by which someone
could bring force to a change of opinion about their future work.  It
seems wrong to claim that this assignment relationship is irrevocable,
that it lays claim without limitation to all related work in the
person's lifetime.

I had interpreted the "thirty days' prior written notice" clause as the
clause under which the assignment could be revoked, thus marking an end
to the "Work".  On further reading, this doesn't seem to be the case.


- Allen S. Rout

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

"Allen S. Rout" <asr@ufl.edu> writes:

> On 03/13/2013 02:32 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> Our normal future assignment contract covers all changes to Emacs. 
>> Whether it is considered a "contribution" or a "fork" is not a 
>> criterion.
>
> It might be appropriate to articulate the procedure by which someone
> could bring force to a change of opinion about their future work.  It
> seems wrong to claim that this assignment relationship is irrevocable,
> that it lays claim without limitation to all related work in the
> person's lifetime.

Thanks for articulating my questions from an impersonal standpoint.
Your suggestions does intimately concern the/some points I raised.

> - Allen S. Rout
-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Bastien]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> "Allen S. Rout" <asr@ufl.edu> writes:
>
>> On 03/13/2013 02:32 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>
>>> Our normal future assignment contract covers all changes to Emacs. 
>>> Whether it is considered a "contribution" or a "fork" is not a 
>>> criterion.
>>
>> It might be appropriate to articulate the procedure by which someone
>> could bring force to a change of opinion about their future work.  It
>> seems wrong to claim that this assignment relationship is irrevocable,
>> that it lays claim without limitation to all related work in the
>> person's lifetime.
>
> Thanks for articulating my questions from an impersonal standpoint.
> Your suggestions does intimately concern the/some points I raised.

I'm personally fine with the idea of the FSF letting you revoke your
copyright assignment for future changes.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 > Our normal future assignment contract covers all changes to Emacs.
 > Whether it is considered a "contribution" or a "fork" is not a
 > criterion.

I think you should ask your lawyer about that.  As far as I can see,
my 10 line program that calls into Emacs has just as much right to
consider itself "The Work" that happens to link to "code from" Emacs
as Emacs has to consider my program "a change to Emacs."  Do you
really think the FSF owns copyright to my init file, not to mention
the init files of every contributor with a future assignment on file?

Remember, as far as copyright is concerned, Emacs doesn't exist except
as a specific collection of copies of a body of expressive content.
Which copy of Emacs are you claiming Jambunathan modified?  That's a
rhetorical question, of course, but I don't see an easy way to answer
it to support a claim of "it's assigned as soon as you write it".  I
stipulate that it should be easy to show that he modified code with
copyright held by the FSF -- but was that part of Emacs?  Assume for
the sake of argument that at the time the permissions notice said
"This program is part of Org-mode."

It seems to me that the only easy way to assert your claim is to get
the author to stipulate that it is a modification of Emacs.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[W. Greenhouse]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen-Sn97VrDLz2sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> writes:

> Richard Stallman writes:
>
>  > Our normal future assignment contract covers all changes to Emacs.
>  > Whether it is considered a "contribution" or a "fork" is not a
>  > criterion.
>
> I think you should ask your lawyer about that.  As far as I can see,
> my 10 line program that calls into Emacs has just as much right to
> consider itself "The Work" that happens to link to "code from" Emacs
> as Emacs has to consider my program "a change to Emacs."  Do you
> really think the FSF owns copyright to my init file, not to mention
> the init files of every contributor with a future assignment on file?

Your 10 line program likely does not pass the de minimis threshold to be
copyrightable in the first place, but that aside, I don't think a court
would have any problem recognizing it as not a "change to Emacs," if
it's not distributed with something calling itself Emacs.  Your initfile
would be "an original work of authorship," not a "change to Emacs"--even
though it's not usable or useful without an Emacs to run it on.

Jambunathan's work is not really in the same category.  My understanding
is that he'd already assigned copyright on his work in Org (and his
patches elsewhere in Emacs) to the FSF, and now wanted to "withdraw his
pleasure" at that assignment--i.e. to withdraw specific things that he'd
already committed to Org so that they'd revert to being joint works,
their copyright unenforceable (or, rather, not easily enforceable) in
the US without his consent.  He seems to have known exactly what he was
doing and calculated the maneuver for the chaos it would generate.

> Remember, as far as copyright is concerned, Emacs doesn't exist except
> as a specific collection of copies of a body of expressive content.
> Which copy of Emacs are you claiming Jambunathan modified?  That's a
> rhetorical question, of course, but I don't see an easy way to answer
> it to support a claim of "it's assigned as soon as you write it".  I
> stipulate that it should be easy to show that he modified code with
> copyright held by the FSF -- but was that part of Emacs?  Assume for
> the sake of argument that at the time the permissions notice said
> "This program is part of Org-mode."

Jambunathan modified a repository of software the authors of which
(himself included) assigned their copyright to the FSF, and,
specifically, he worked on files which identified themselves as a "part of
GNU Emacs."

Org has, independently, a policy that contributors of any hacks of more
than about 10 or 20 lines assign copyright to the FSF (for "core"
libraries, anyway--not for snippets posted on the worg and for stuff in
contrib/ which is not distributed with Emacs).

> It seems to me that the only easy way to assert your claim is to get
> the author to stipulate that it is a modification of Emacs.

Which the files in Org do.  Everything in Org's core contains "This
file is a part of GNU Emacs."

-- 
Regards,
WGG

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

W. Greenhouse writes:

 > Your 10 line program likely does not pass the de minimis threshold to be
 > copyrightable in the first place,

I think you'll find there is no such de minimis in copyright law.  Eg,
surely individual haiku are copyrightable.

 > but that aside, I don't think a court would have any problem
 > recognizing it as not a "change to Emacs," if it's not distributed
 > with something calling itself Emacs.

Jambunathan claims that his files haven't been distributed with
something calling itself Emacs, either.  They're been distributed with
what (as a maintainer of a fork of Emacs considering incorporating
org-mode) I too consider a separate work, org-mode -- of which Emacs
itself is now a derivative, and IIRC org-mode is a component of
another separate collective work called "GNU ELPA".

I'm asking for clarification about how and where the lines are drawn.
I would be perfectly happy if that line is drawn so that org-mode is
part of Emacs: that doesn't stop XEmacs from distributing it, and
that's obviously what org-mode developers want.  I just don't see how
to draw the line between org-mode and my init file without using
concepts that don't seem to be reflected in law.

Note that your interpretation is also at variance with the FSF's
statements and behavior regarding dynamic linking.  The FSF does not
believe that "distribution with" is required under copyright law to
establish a work composed of several components.

 > Your initfile would be "an original work of authorship," not a
 > "change to Emacs"--even though it's not usable or useful without an
 > Emacs to run it on.

In copyright, all changes are original works of authorship.  The fact
that they may require composition with another work to be useful
doesn't change that.  AFAICS there is no concept of "change" in US
copyright law (or Japanese, for that matter).  Works are *fixed* in a
medium and then *copied*.  "Modified version" is an abbreviation for
"some parts of a work were copied into another work which is not
identical to the work being copied", as far as I can see.  It does not
establish a relationship of "modifications to an existing work"
between the original parts of the derived work and the copied work,
when those original parts are considered separately.

In short, legally a derived work contains a *copy of*, but not
*changes to*, another work.

 > Jambunathan modified a repository of software the authors of which
 > (himself included) assigned their copyright to the FSF, and,

Irrelevant, unless all copyrights held by the FSF are part of Emacs.

 > specifically, he worked on files which identified themselves as a
 > "part of GNU Emacs."

I'm aware that's probably true.  That's why I specified a
counterfactual assuming that he received and changed files that had
not yet been accepted into the Emacs fold, and identified themselves
as part of a separate work.  I'm not trying to defend Jambunathan's
behavior, I want to know just how much of my oeuvre the FSF thinks
I've signed away.

 > Which the files in Org do.  Everything in Org's core contains "This
 > file is a part of GNU Emacs."

"Core" and does now, yes.  The point of my hypothetical is that the
files Jambunathan started from, and committed, may not have.  Those
bags of bits therefore may not have been part of Emacs at the time in
copyright law, and I don't see how to establish that he "modified
Emacs" under those (possibly counterfactual) conditions.  Especially
considering that AIUI in copyright law works can be "fixed" and
"copied", but there is no formal concept of modification, only of
derivation.

I'm not particularly fond of that conclusion in the case in point.  I
don't think what Jambunathan proposes to do serves anyone or any
project well, least of all himself.  (And I've told him that,
privately.)  "You can't do that, legally" would be the simplest
resolution.  But simple resolutions in law often have unpleasant
consequences, and I would like to know about those consequences.

It's possible that the assignment contract creates a new concept of
"work", different from that of copyright law.  But if so, I have a
rather different concept of "what Emacs is" from the one which claims
files in the contrib directory of the org-mode repository as "part of
Emacs" (even though the files themselves may claim to be such a part),
and I wonder how a court would deal with that difference of opinion.
I suspect it would take my opinion seriously (not necessarily uphold
it, but surely not summarily dismiss it as prima facie untenable).

Aside:

 > My understanding is that he'd already assigned copyright on his
 > work in Org (and his patches elsewhere in Emacs) to the FSF, and
 > now wanted to "withdraw his pleasure" at that assignment--i.e. to
 > withdraw specific things that he'd already committed to Org so that
 > they'd revert to being joint works, their copyright unenforceable
 > (or, rather, not easily enforceable) in the US without his consent.

Of course the FSF cannot enforce copyright on unassigned parts of a
joint work without cooperation of the copyright holder(s), but I think
the premise of individual copyright on joint works being "difficult to
enforce" is false nowadays.  VCS history passes all the tests
necessary for computer records to be admitted in court.

But that's irrelevant to Emacs policy, the policy is what it is, and
as Mr. Fogel points out, today it serves social purposes as well as
legal ones.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[W. Greenhouse]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen-Sn97VrDLz2sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> writes:

> W. Greenhouse writes:
>
>  > Your 10 line program likely does not pass the de minimis threshold to be
>  > copyrightable in the first place,
>
> I think you'll find there is no such de minimis in copyright law.  Eg,
> surely individual haiku are copyrightable.

There is de minimis originality and creativity, rather than de minimis
length.  The haiku has a stronger claim to copyright--because it is an
original and entirely non-functional work--than would fifty lines of the
typical Emacs user's initfile, some variable settings, perhaps a
defadvice or two, and some snippet from the Emacswiki.  The three lines
are creativity without having any function at all, while the fifty lines
are a mix of creative and functional, probably more functional than
creative.  At the extremes of this functional-vs-creative dichotomy,
things like phone directory data do not meet the de minimis standards
for copyrightability at all, even if it's a database of millions of
phone numbers (e.g. Feist v. Rural Telephone, where the court rejected a
copyright challenge by a phone company hoping to get royalties from a
rival phone directory publisher).  That's outside copyright because the
way a phone directory is organized is completely devoid of creativity.
If it were creative, it wouldn't be useful; plumbers would be listed
under B for blacksmith and you'd never find what you were looking for.
Magazine and journal database publishers, too, have a very weak and
contentious copyright claim, for the same reason.  Their work, although
voluminous, is not creative and is organized in a very nearly purely
functional way.

To go further down the rabbit hole, there is actually de minimis length
in copyright.  Slogans and catchphrases from advertising campaigns have
been held too short to be protected under copyright; rights to the use
of such can only be enforced under trademark law.

>  > but that aside, I don't think a court would have any problem
>  > recognizing it as not a "change to Emacs," if it's not distributed
>  > with something calling itself Emacs.
>
> Jambunathan claims that his files haven't been distributed with
> something calling itself Emacs, either.  They're been distributed with
> what (as a maintainer of a fork of Emacs considering incorporating
> org-mode) I too consider a separate work, org-mode -- of which Emacs
> itself is now a derivative, and IIRC org-mode is a component of
> another separate collective work called "GNU ELPA".
>
> I'm asking for clarification about how and where the lines are drawn.
> I would be perfectly happy if that line is drawn so that org-mode is
> part of Emacs: that doesn't stop XEmacs from distributing it, and
> that's obviously what org-mode developers want.  I just don't see how
> to draw the line between org-mode and my init file without using
> concepts that don't seem to be reflected in law.

Not to speak for the project, but according to
http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html Org developers must "grant
the right to include [their] works in GNU Emacs to the FSF" by signing
assignment papers in which "the Work" is Emacs.  Only contributors of
"tiny changes" and contributors to contrib/ are exempted.  Prior to an
Org release's inclusion in Emacs, it is *also* embodied in a work called
ELPA.  But it seems to me that Org has taken pretty much all the
affirmative steps it can as a project to be seen as "part of Emacs."
Even the core files in the ELPA and Git versions say "This file is a
part of GNU Emacs."

> Note that your interpretation is also at variance with the FSF's
> statements and behavior regarding dynamic linking.  The FSF does not
> believe that "distribution with" is required under copyright law to
> establish a work composed of several components.

I'm aware of the FSF's policy on dynamic linking, but I don't really see
it as apposite to interpreted languages like Emacs Lisp.  In copyright
terms, Emacs is a "compilation," a category of work recognized as being
made of smaller works--in this case, those would be the C core, the Info
manuals, the various Lisp features/packages included in the standard
distribution, the pictures, etc.  If you are disturbed by the phrase
"distributed with," read for it "included in the compilation."

Because of the considerable lag involved in upstream versions of Org
being drawn down into the compilation known as GNU Emacs, Jambunathan
may well be right that two of his files have never been included in "GNU
Emacs."  However, there's nothing in copyright law to prevent someone
from assigning some or all of their rights to a work in advance; this
happens all the time, e.g. when a writer is commissioned by a magazine
to write an article.

> > Your initfile would be "an original work of authorship," not a
>  > "change to Emacs"--even though it's not usable or useful without an
>  > Emacs to run it on.
>
> In copyright, all changes are original works of authorship.  The fact
> that they may require composition with another work to be useful
> doesn't change that.  AFAICS there is no concept of "change" in US
> copyright law (or Japanese, for that matter).  Works are *fixed* in a
> medium and then *copied*.  "Modified version" is an abbreviation for
> "some parts of a work were copied into another work which is not
> identical to the work being copied", as far as I can see.  It does not
> establish a relationship of "modifications to an existing work"
> between the original parts of the derived work and the copied work,
> when those original parts are considered separately.
>
> In short, legally a derived work contains a *copy of*, but not
> *changes to*, another work.
>
>  > Jambunathan modified a repository of software the authors of which
>  > (himself included) assigned their copyright to the FSF, and,
>
> Irrelevant, unless all copyrights held by the FSF are part of Emacs.
>
>  > specifically, he worked on files which identified themselves as a
>  > "part of GNU Emacs."

I think we're both saying--and I agree--that "changes to" is shorthand
for "derivative work," which your initfile clearly isn't.  I took RMS's
statement in this thread to mean that the FSF's policy is to operate on
the assumption that copyright is still assigned to the FSF when someone
who has already assigned copyright to a contribution to Emacs makes a
derivative work (i.e. a fork) of that contribution to Emacs.  I don't
see how that applies to your initfile or why you'd think it would,
unless perhaps if your initfile copies and redefines a bunch of stuff
from a library also in Emacs that you contributed to.

> I'm aware that's probably true.  That's why I specified a
> counterfactual assuming that he received and changed files that had
> not yet been accepted into the Emacs fold, and identified themselves
> as part of a separate work.  I'm not trying to defend Jambunathan's
> behavior, I want to know just how much of my oeuvre the FSF thinks
> I've signed away.
>
>  > Which the files in Org do.  Everything in Org's core contains "This
>  > file is a part of GNU Emacs."
>
> "Core" and does now, yes.  The point of my hypothetical is that the
> files Jambunathan started from, and committed, may not have.  Those
> bags of bits therefore may not have been part of Emacs at the time in
> copyright law, and I don't see how to establish that he "modified
> Emacs" under those (possibly counterfactual) conditions.  Especially
> considering that AIUI in copyright law works can be "fixed" and
> "copied", but there is no formal concept of modification, only of
> derivation.
>
> I'm not particularly fond of that conclusion in the case in point.  I
> don't think what Jambunathan proposes to do serves anyone or any
> project well, least of all himself.  (And I've told him that,
> privately.)  "You can't do that, legally" would be the simplest
> resolution.  But simple resolutions in law often have unpleasant
> consequences, and I would like to know about those consequences.
>
> It's possible that the assignment contract creates a new concept of
> "work", different from that of copyright law.  But if so, I have a
> rather different concept of "what Emacs is" from the one which claims
> files in the contrib directory of the org-mode repository as "part of
> Emacs" (even though the files themselves may claim to be such a part),
> and I wonder how a court would deal with that difference of opinion.
> I suspect it would take my opinion seriously (not necessarily uphold
> it, but surely not summarily dismiss it as prima facie untenable).

I think it's right that the concept of "work" in an assignment contract
is not exactly analogous to the concept of "work" in copyright, for the
following reason: US copyright law, as you rightly point out, governs only
works which are already "fixed in tangible form."  OTOH, an assignment
contract may permissibly (and often does in cases other than software,
as I pointed out with the example of the writer and the magazine
publisher) assign rights over an as-yet-nonexistent work, in
contemplation of its eventually being fixed in tangible form.

As the assignment papers are contract law rather than copyright, the
limits on them would presumably be drawn from contract law; i.e. a court
will not enforce an "unconscionable" contract.  In much of the EU and
other Civil Code jurisdictions, *any* contract to assign author's rights
is unconscionable, or contra bonos mores.  In the US, it would depend on
whether the contributor understood what they were doing when they
assigned their rights.  I think a contract that assigned to the FSF all
your future works in Emacs Lisp would be unconscionable, but one that
assigned to the FSF all your future works to improve or extend
particular libraries that you had already assigned to the FSF would
not.  Again with the writer/publisher example, contracts that cover the
current edition of a work and also assign the publisher rights to future
editions are within the realm of what people already do under the law,
so they're not likely to be deemed unconscionable.

> Aside:
>
>  > My understanding is that he'd already assigned copyright on his
>  > work in Org (and his patches elsewhere in Emacs) to the FSF, and
>  > now wanted to "withdraw his pleasure" at that assignment--i.e. to
>  > withdraw specific things that he'd already committed to Org so that
>  > they'd revert to being joint works, their copyright unenforceable
>  > (or, rather, not easily enforceable) in the US without his consent.
>
> Of course the FSF cannot enforce copyright on unassigned parts of a
> joint work without cooperation of the copyright holder(s), but I think
> the premise of individual copyright on joint works being "difficult to
> enforce" is false nowadays.  VCS history passes all the tests
> necessary for computer records to be admitted in court.
>
> But that's irrelevant to Emacs policy, the policy is what it is, and
> as Mr. Fogel points out, today it serves social purposes as well as
> legal ones.

It may be that at some point the policy won't be needed anymore, due to
things like the high quality of VCS records.*  It was always an ad hoc
hack to address the needs of copyright assignment in one particular
jurisdiction (the US); it does nothing elsewhere.

*Until the courts realize that most VCSes allow people to rewrite
 history.  I don't think any of us want to be around for some judge
 trying to reconcile chain of custody with `git rebase'. ;-)

-- 
Regards,
WGG

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Bastien]

wgreenhouse-sGOZH3hwPm2sTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org (W. Greenhouse)
writes:

> Because of the considerable lag involved in upstream versions of Org
> being drawn down into the compilation known as GNU Emacs, Jambunathan
> may well be right that two of his files have never been included in "GNU
> Emacs."

The two files are not "his".  ox-html.el is a rewrite of org-html.el,
co-authored by Carsten and others.  Jambunathan is the original author
of ox-odt.el (and of org-odt.el), but this file is also co-authored by
another contributor and me.  

Both files are published with the usual copyright mention:

;; Copyright (C) 2010-2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Let's not be fooled by Jambunathan's habit of saying "my files",
that's how we end up thinking there is a moral prejudice made to him,
while he's trying to make a moral prejudice on those who contributed
to org-html.el, ox-html.el, org-odt.el and ox-odt.el--and on those who
plan to contribute on ox-html.el and ox-odt.el under the assumption
that they are part of Org's core, which is part of GNU Emacs.

Btw, thanks for the knowledge you share about copyright law, this is a
useful read!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[W. Greenhouse]

Bastien <bzg-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org> writes:

> wgreenhouse-sGOZH3hwPm2sTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org (W. Greenhouse)
> writes:
>
>> Because of the considerable lag involved in upstream versions of Org
>> being drawn down into the compilation known as GNU Emacs, Jambunathan
>> may well be right that two of his files have never been included in "GNU
>> Emacs."
>
> The two files are not "his".  ox-html.el is a rewrite of org-html.el,
> co-authored by Carsten and others.  Jambunathan is the original author
> of ox-odt.el (and of org-odt.el), but this file is also co-authored by
> another contributor and me.  
>
> Both files are published with the usual copyright mention:
>
> ;; Copyright (C) 2010-2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> Let's not be fooled by Jambunathan's habit of saying "my files",
> that's how we end up thinking there is a moral prejudice made to him,
> while he's trying to make a moral prejudice on those who contributed
> to org-html.el, ox-html.el, org-odt.el and ox-odt.el--and on those who
> plan to contribute on ox-html.el and ox-odt.el under the assumption
> that they are part of Org's core, which is part of GNU Emacs.
>
> Btw, thanks for the knowledge you share about copyright law, this is a
> useful read!

Yes, I thought it was the case that they were rewrites of the old
org-html.el which I still use on a fairly frequent basis. :)  Thanks for
clarifying/emphasizing this point.

-- 
Regards,
WGG

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

> Jambunathan's habit of saying "my files",

[Citation Needed]

-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Bastien]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

>> Jambunathan's habit of saying "my files",
>
> [Citation Needed]

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/157718

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

W. Greenhouse writes:
 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
 > 
 > > W. Greenhouse writes:
 > >
 > >  > Your 10 line program likely does not pass the de minimis threshold to be
 > >  > copyrightable in the first place,
 > >
 > > I think you'll find there is no such de minimis in copyright law.  Eg,
 > > surely individual haiku are copyrightable.
 > 
 > There is de minimis originality and creativity,

OK, let's stop here.  This no longer has much bearing on what code is
part of Emacs, and Richard says he'll study some questions, which is
what I asked.  I'm going to respond to Mr. (?) Greenhouse offline, and
will be happy to send a digest (after receiving permission if there's
a response) on request.

Steve

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Richard Stallman]

I will talk with lawyers in cases where I see a need.
I will not ask them to spend time arguing with you.
You are grasping at straws to create an appearance of doubt.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:
 > I will talk with lawyers in cases where I see a need.
 > I will not ask them to spend time arguing with you.
 > You are grasping at straws to create an appearance of doubt.

Ad hominem, Richard?  That's usually beneath you.

But no, your statements create real doubt.  You say the FSF owns all
"changes to Emacs", but you won't say what you think they are, and it
is not at all obvious what the law says about what "Emacs" is.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Richard Stallman]

    Ad hominem, Richard?  That's usually beneath you.

It is not an ad-hominem attack, it is criticism of what you are
saying.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:
 >     Ad hominem, Richard?  That's usually beneath you.
 > 
 > It is not an ad-hominem attack, it is criticism of what you are
 > saying.

You dismissed the content of what I wrote, citing not the content, but
an attribution of intent to me.  That is, without doubt, argumentum ad
hominem.

Your attribution was also false.  I am genuinely concerned that the
FSF and I disagree over the scope of my assignments.  I don't know if
it matters enough to me to do something about it -- I'll have to think
about that -- but I was shocked by the breadth of the claim that you
seemed to be making.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 15.03.2013 01:42, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
> Richard Stallman writes:
>   >     Ad hominem, Richard?  That's usually beneath you.
>   >
>   > It is not an ad-hominem attack, it is criticism of what you are
>   > saying.
>
> You dismissed the content of what I wrote, citing not the content, but
> an attribution of intent to me.  That is, without doubt, argumentum ad
> hominem.
>
> Your attribution was also false.  I am genuinely concerned that the
> FSF and I disagree over the scope of my assignments.

Hi Stephen,

sounds good and justified.

BTW can you remember a case, where the claimed purpose of the assignment came into action?
I.e. did FSF act at US-courts based on it's Emacs copyright ownership?

Also: why is the famous assigment text hardly visible in the net throughout years?

Best,

Andreas


   I don't know if
> it matters enough to me to do something about it -- I'll have to think
> about that -- but I was shocked by the breadth of the claim that you
> seemed to be making.
>
>
>

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Richard Stallman]

    You dismissed the content of what I wrote, citing not the content, but
    an attribution of intent to me.

I criticized your arguments, and I stand by what I said.
I talk with lawyers when I think an issue is real,
not at your command.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:
 >     You dismissed the content of what I wrote, citing not the content, but
 >     an attribution of intent to me.
 > 
 > I criticized your arguments, and I stand by what I said.
 > I talk with lawyers when I think an issue is real,
 > not at your command.

About the reply I expected.

Thank you for the information you provided elsewhere in the thread.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Richard

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Our normal future assignment contract covers all changes to Emacs.
> Whether it is considered a "contribution" or a "fork" is not a
> criterion.

The above statements does not answer specific questions that I raised.

    At what point in time a piece of code contributed to Org etc repo is
    deemed part of Emacs?

    How does an author withhold assignments to certain files?

Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Richard Stallman]

I will study these questions.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 14.03.2013 16:22, schrieb Richard Stallman:
> I will study these questions.
>

Hi Richard,

assignment policy denigrates GPL, creates a trap.

You may GPL qualify as ethical, even if some stipulations are questionable.
OTOH copyright assignment, that was a dream of publishers for centuries
and always fought by authors and their unions.

Best regards,

Andreas

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[W. Greenhouse]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler-BGeptl67XyCzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> writes:

> Am 14.03.2013 16:22, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>> I will study these questions.
>>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> assignment policy denigrates GPL, creates a trap.
>
> You may GPL qualify as ethical, even if some stipulations are questionable.
> OTOH copyright assignment, that was a dream of publishers for centuries
> and always fought by authors and their unions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andreas

And yet, plenty of writers who want to get published submit to it every day.

-- 
Regards,
WGG

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Ivan Andrus]

On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:11 AM, wgreenhouse@riseup.net (W. Greenhouse) wrote:

> Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:
> 
>> Am 14.03.2013 16:22, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>>> I will study these questions.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Richard,
>> 
>> assignment policy denigrates GPL, creates a trap.
>> 
>> You may GPL qualify as ethical, even if some stipulations are questionable.
>> OTOH copyright assignment, that was a dream of publishers for centuries
>> and always fought by authors and their unions.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Andreas
> 
> And yet, plenty of writers who want to get published submit to it every day.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> WGG

And even more people use proprietary software.  Different people value different 
freedoms differently.

-Ivan

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 > Files in Org mode are already on a track to be included in Emacs.

By which you mean "it is the FSF legal staff's professional opinion
that a contribution to org-mode is legally included in an existing
generic assignment to the FSF of contributions to Emacs"?

("Opinion" is not deprecatory, it simply reflects caution with
any claim that might be subject to a court's overriding opinion.)

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Richard Stallman]

     > Files in Org mode are already on a track to be included in Emacs.

    By which you mean "it is the FSF legal staff's professional opinion

You have misunderstood completely.  I'm not talking about anyone's
opinion.  I am telling you my policy decision.

If someone asks us, as a favor, not to include in Emacs some of the
code he has assigned, we might in some situations grant his request --
but not if we have already started including it.

As for what judges might decide about some other question, I am
confident that all a person's changes to Emacs are assigned, and I
will discuss the details with lawyers if I see a need.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>      > Files in Org mode are already on a track to be included in Emacs.
>
>     By which you mean "it is the FSF legal staff's professional opinion
>
> You have misunderstood completely.  I'm not talking about anyone's
> opinion.  I am telling you my policy decision.

My case opens up some grey areas and I am entitled to know clearly the
FSF's official position (rather than the intent) on questions I raise
below.  I also request that the answers be communicated privately to me
and also other contributors when they come forward to support FSF
projects.

(Stay with me as I articulate my position)

As some one has raised the question, 

I would really like that FSF office holders clearly explain to
contributors in plain english what a future assignment would amount
to.

For example, the clerk clearly indicated to me in plain english that I
should contact her office should my employer change.

For example, the assignment document says and I quote 

    ,---- (see Item 1a)
    | agrees to assign and hereby assign to FSF, Developer's copyright in
    | changes and/or enhancements to the suite of programs known as GNU EMACS 
    `----

1. When does an assignment come to effect.  (See my other mail about an
   intent and an act that effects the intent.)  

   My strong contention is that it comes into effect in the act of
   committing the files to GNU ELPA or Emacs repo.  

   Distributed development is norm rather than exception these days and
   it is likely that the files are "prepared" and "committed to" in a
   local private repo maintained with any of the *-hubs and *-forges or
   in repositories like that of Org's which is outside the
   administrative control of FSF or the Emacs maintainers.  Org is NOT
   Emacs.  Org is A PART OF Emacs.  The difference is very important and
   subtle.

   A random Joe can say his random file is part of Emacs.  That doesn't
   make the file part of Emacs.  The Emacs maintainers has to agree and
   accept that it is part of Emacs.  A file becomes part of Emacs only
   when it is committed in to Emacs's official tree.

   My contributions to Orgmode aren't accepted in to Emacs.  There is an
   in principle acceptance but a commit of questionable nature can be
   purged before the Org sources are merged.  There is an intent to
   merge with Emacs but that intent is not effected until and unless the
   merge itself has happened.

   A file is an ongoing work.  It is possible that a file is in a state
   of flux as it is edited and the copyright header might reflect wrong
   years.  It is the release manager's duty to audit and tidy up the
   sources before a public release of the sources.

   So the act of public release is also significant when the source
   tarballs are declared fit to be downloaded and used.  The act of
   public release is significant and should be contrasted with
   file-in-a-state-of-flux in a working development tree.

2. What programs fall under the suite?

3. How would a developer inform that he wants some work to remain GPLed
   but not without having a transfer of copyright to FSF.  There should
   be exceptions right?

4. A developer isn't interested in contributing to certain projects -
   because of his own preferences.  How would he exclude that his work
   on certain programs under suite wouldn't be considered for inclusion
   in Emacs.

5. How would developer terminate the future assingment.  There should be
   a way to terminate right.

> If someone asks us, as a favor, not to include in Emacs some of the
> code he has assigned, we might in some situations grant his request --
> but not if we have already started including it.

FSF reserves certain rights (of enforcement).  It is upto FSF to decide
whether it will actually exercise those rights.

I feel there is a grey area here - My files are not part of any
officially released source tarball, it is not accepted and hence not
part of Emacs.

Let me reiterate my position that the assignment hasn't actually taken
effect and that by pre-emptively informing FSF beforehand, I have
exercised my moral right to dictate how my own work - produced with my
own personal resources - be used.  (My work will be GPL and I have no
plans to act in a way that is opposed to license that I have agreed to.)

So my request to *NOT* include my work in to Emacs still stands.

> As for what judges might decide about some other question, I am
> confident that all a person's changes to Emacs are assigned, and I
> will discuss the details with lawyers if I see a need.

Please discuss with lawyers and let me know when a file *actually
becomes* part of Emacs.

Jambunathan K.
-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:
 >      > Files in Org mode are already on a track to be included in Emacs.
 > 
 >     By which you mean "it is the FSF legal staff's professional opinion
 > 
 > You have misunderstood completely.  I'm not talking about anyone's
 > opinion.  I am telling you my policy decision.

No, I understand that this is your policy decision.  My question is
directed to figuring out what works it applies to.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Christian Egli]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
> as part of Org distribution.

These files have been published under the GNU GPL[1] which gives
everybody the right to modify and redistribute them as long as they
comply with the GNU GPL. In other words the current maintainer has every
right to include these files in any further release of orgmode.

> More specifically, I would like to know how copyright assignment works
> for files that are not yet part of Emacs.  

The copyright assignment is solely for the purpose of having one
copyright owner. This helps for legal disputes and to change the
license. However it is not needed for redistribution purposes, i.e. it
gives you no legal recourse to stop redistribution of these files. Once
you have published them under GNU GPL (and you have) everybody
(including the current maintainer of orgmode) has the four freedoms that
come with the GNU GPL[2] namely

> the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
> the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
> the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
> the freedom to share the changes you make.

Again IANAL, but then the GNU GPL is pretty clear about this.

Hope this helps
Christian

Footnotes: 
[1]  on mailing lists and in the git repo of orgmode
[2]  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
-- 
Christian Egli
Swiss Library for the Blind, Visually Impaired and Print Disabled
Grubenstrasse 12, CH-8045 Zürich, Switzerland

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Christian

You are mixing licensing and copyright assignment.  They are two
different things.

I am withdrawing my pleasure in giving a consent for inclusion in Emacs.
IMO, opinion I can do so for the files haven't landed in Emacs yet.  

If you look at some of my posts in Orgmode list, I make it very clear
that Orgmode can choose to re-distribute the files.

Jambunathan K.


Christian Egli <christian.egli@sbs.ch> writes:

> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
>> as part of Org distribution.
>
> These files have been published under the GNU GPL[1] which gives
> everybody the right to modify and redistribute them as long as they
> comply with the GNU GPL. In other words the current maintainer has every
> right to include these files in any further release of orgmode.
>
>> More specifically, I would like to know how copyright assignment works
>> for files that are not yet part of Emacs.  
>
> The copyright assignment is solely for the purpose of having one
> copyright owner. This helps for legal disputes and to change the
> license. However it is not needed for redistribution purposes, i.e. it
> gives you no legal recourse to stop redistribution of these files. Once
> you have published them under GNU GPL (and you have) everybody
> (including the current maintainer of orgmode) has the four freedoms that
> come with the GNU GPL[2] namely
>
>> the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
>> the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
>> the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
>> the freedom to share the changes you make.
>
> Again IANAL, but then the GNU GPL is pretty clear about this.
>
> Hope this helps
> Christian
>
> Footnotes: 
> [1]  on mailing lists and in the git repo of orgmode
> [2]  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Glenn Morris]

People on Emacs mailing lists exhibit a remarkable degree of patience. I
sometimes think they are too tolerant of disruptive and unpleasant
behaviour. I'm less patient and think we would be better served by being
a bit less tolerant of bad behaviour. I feel obliged to comment on your
behaviour.

Jambunathan K wrote:

> I have some disagreements with current Orgmode maintainer and the
> community in general. 

It's obvious to even a casual observer of the Org mailing list such as
myself that you seem to have some grudge against Bastien Guerry, who
AFAICS seems a remarkably patient (too patient, IMO), good-natured
individual. You on the other hand come across as very unpleasant and
deliberately disruptive. I invite anyone to look at your public history
on that list and judge for themselves. We are now getting a tiny taste
of it on emacs-devel.

As only the latest example:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-03/msg00747.html

I have no idea why anyone continues to read your mails, and encourage
them not to.

> I would like to withdraw my pleasure in having these files distributed
> as part of Org distribution.

Tough, there is absolutely nothing you can do about your past
contributions to Org. They can always put them in Org's contrib
directory and not merge them to Emacs. So the only thing you can
(possibly) screw by this action is Emacs.

AFAICS, you (quite rightly and predictably) had zero positive replies to
your offer to take over Org:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-02/msg00701.html

The best thing for everyone would be if you went away and made your own
version.

> More specifically, I would like to know how copyright assignment works
> for files that are not yet part of Emacs.  Is there is a way I can
> withdraw my assignment (for a substantial period - say 3-6 months) big
> enough to create a minor discomfort for the Org community.

What a totally mean-spirited thing to do, that can only waste a bunch of
people's time (we already have a bunch of people discussing what
assignment does and does not mean) and gain nobody anything.

If these are the kinds of games you like to play, then my proposal (it's
not up to me though) to resolve the issue is that we stop accepting
contributions of any kind from you to Emacs. This would save us having
to waste time on this.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Glenn

I am arguing my case well.  How I behave in other forums is irrelevant
and out of topic unless you resort to stereotyping.

> If these are the kinds of games you like to play, then my proposal
> (it's not up to me though) to resolve the issue is that we stop
> accepting contributions of any kind from you to Emacs.  This would
> save us having to waste time on this.

How clear are you? I am confused.  You are arguing for not having
ox-html.el and ox-odt.el in Emacs or are you arguing for it?

I am talking about a contract that I signed and seeking clarifications.
I hope FSF doesn't make arbitrary decisions based on the personality of
contributor.

I am trying to reason here.

Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 01:55:20 +0530
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > If these are the kinds of games you like to play, then my proposal
> > (it's not up to me though) to resolve the issue is that we stop
> > accepting contributions of any kind from you to Emacs.  This would
> > save us having to waste time on this.
> 
> How clear are you? I am confused.  You are arguing for not having
> ox-html.el and ox-odt.el in Emacs or are you arguing for it?

He is arguing for you to shut up and go away, if that's not clear.  No
amount of word games can conceal your ill will and selfish,
self-serving conduct.  It is clear to everyone here, believe me.  It
didn't begin today, either.  Cut your losses and get lost.

> I am talking about a contract that I signed and seeking clarifications.

This is not the proper place to talk about that.  Please talk to the
FSF personnel, who are the only ones that can give you authoritative
answers anyway.  The Emacs and Org maintainers will do whatever the
FSF personnel decide on that matter and instruct us to do.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Eli

>> I am talking about a contract that I signed and seeking clarifications.
>
> This is not the proper place to talk about that.  Please talk to the
> FSF personnel, who are the only ones that can give you authoritative
> answers anyway.  The Emacs and Org maintainers will do whatever the
> FSF personnel decide on that matter and instruct us to do.

So be it.  I said I approached the official folks.

I don't want to hear any non-official opinions either one way or the
other.  What I hear is just prejudices of the Emacs and Org-camp.

Jambunathan K.
-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:06:48 +0530
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> What I hear is just prejudices of the Emacs and Org-camp.

What you hear is a community desperately trying to remain civilized in
the face of your profoundly hostile behavior.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Karl Fogel]

+1 to what Glenn and Eli said.

Normally, I'd just invoke http://donotfeedtheenergybeast.com/ and
refrain from further comment!  But there's something that should be made
clear to Jambunathan and, more importantly, to other Org and Emacs
developers:

When J. Random Developer makes a copyright assignment to the FSF, it is
a signal to everyone that jrandom's commits are now worth some extra
investment: more time spent on code review, more participation in design
discussion, bug reporting, further dependent changes, etc.

The changes Jambunathan has committed so far are changes that other
people have *already* invested in.  Everyone was assured that the
changes had cleared the purely procedural hurdles to becoming part of
Emacs, and everyone acted based on that assurance.  Jambunathan can't
just retroactively undo that -- others have already counted on it.

If he wants to withdraw his copyright assignment for future changes --
changes that have not yet hit any public repository, where people might
invest their own time into those changes -- I guess he could do that.
But the idea that he can retroactively cause people to have wasted time
is ridiculous.  The changes he's contributed so far are covered by his
past commitment, and we should rely on commitment whether he wants us to
or not.

It's clear from looking at the Org Mode dev thread and this conversation
that he would never be chosen by any other developers as the Org Mode
maintainer.  It's equally clear that he is capable of disrupting
development and wasting everyone's time.  I don't know first-hand how
important his future technical contributions might be, but unless the
answer is "incredibly crucial", the best thing the projects could do
would be to

  - Accept no further changes from him.
  - Don't let him post on the dev mailing lists any more, period.

I hope the Org and Emacs maintainers will do the above.  This similar
instance from over a decade ago might be a useful comparison:

  http://producingoss.com/en/difficult-people.html#difficult-people-case-study
  
-Karl

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 01:55:20 +0530
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> > If these are the kinds of games you like to play, then my proposal
>> > (it's not up to me though) to resolve the issue is that we stop
>> > accepting contributions of any kind from you to Emacs.  This would
>> > save us having to waste time on this.
>> 
>> How clear are you? I am confused.  You are arguing for not having
>> ox-html.el and ox-odt.el in Emacs or are you arguing for it?
>
>He is arguing for you to shut up and go away, if that's not clear.  No
>amount of word games can conceal your ill will and selfish,
>self-serving conduct.  It is clear to everyone here, believe me.  It
>didn't begin today, either.  Cut your losses and get lost.
>
>> I am talking about a contract that I signed and seeking clarifications.
>
>This is not the proper place to talk about that.  Please talk to the
>FSF personnel, who are the only ones that can give you authoritative
>answers anyway.  The Emacs and Org maintainers will do whatever the
>FSF personnel decide on that matter and instruct us to do.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> writes:

> It's clear from looking at the Org Mode dev thread 

It is an error to assume that you (one) can have nuanced understanding
of community dynamics and human motivations by looking at some mailing
list threads scattered here and there.

>   - Accept no further changes from him.
>   - Don't let him post on the dev mailing lists any more, period.

I may have a stinking personality.  But the code I write has a secular
nature.  The code doesn't take the smell of the hand it types.  

This fellow (this is yesterday's post)

        http://www.mail-archive.com/emacs-orgmode@gnu.org/msg67840.html

gets on with his business without spinning out conspiracy theories and
venturing in to speculation.  That's what a typical beneficiary will be
like when I disappear from the list.

Jambunathan K.
-- 

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[W. Greenhouse]

Jambunathan,

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> writes:

> Karl Fogel <kfogel-bqtBzms/kfRWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> writes:
>
>> It's clear from looking at the Org Mode dev thread 
>
> It is an error to assume that you (one) can have nuanced understanding
> of community dynamics and human motivations by looking at some mailing
> list threads scattered here and there.
>
>>   - Accept no further changes from him.
>>   - Don't let him post on the dev mailing lists any more, period.
>
> I may have a stinking personality.  But the code I write has a secular
> nature.  The code doesn't take the smell of the hand it types.  

The code takes the taint and the risk of the copyright troll you are
evidently trying to become.  Any free software project is well advised
to steer clear of known copyright trolls.

Indeed, your code was fine until the very moment you decided to use it
as a cudgel against your community.  The potential that you will do so
again is reason enough to exclude it.

> This fellow (this is yesterday's post)
>
>         http://www.mail-archive.com/emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org/msg67840.html
>
> gets on with his business without spinning out conspiracy theories and
> venturing in to speculation.  That's what a typical beneficiary will be
> like when I disappear from the list.

It's hardly a "conspiracy theory" or "specualtion" when you state as
your goal the disruption, delay, and inconvenience of Org, Emacs, and
their users.

-- 
Regards,
WGG

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Karl Fogel]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>>   - Accept no further changes from him.
>>   - Don't let him post on the dev mailing lists any more, period.
>
>I may have a stinking personality.  But the code I write has a secular
>nature.  The code doesn't take the smell of the hand it types.  

As W. Greenhouse also pointed out, the issue is not your code itself
(the quality of which is not in question) but the fact that people can't
count on your future code being usable in Emacs.  People can't count on
*their* investment in your code having the anticipated payoff, for them.
That makes your future contributions unsafe; ergo, Emacs should not
accept them.

I made this point pretty clearly in my orginal post, but make it again
here only in case anyone watching was thrown by your confusion of two
separate issues.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Jambunathan K]

Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> writes:

> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>>>   - Accept no further changes from him.
>>>   - Don't let him post on the dev mailing lists any more, period.
>>
>>I may have a stinking personality.  But the code I write has a secular
>>nature.  The code doesn't take the smell of the hand it types.  
>
> As W. Greenhouse also pointed out, the issue is not your code itself
> (the quality of which is not in question) but the fact that people can't
> count on your future code being usable in Emacs.  People can't count on
> *their* investment in your code having the anticipated payoff, for them.
> That makes your future contributions unsafe; ergo, Emacs should not
> accept them.
>
> I made this point pretty clearly in my orginal post, but make it again
> here only in case anyone watching was thrown by your confusion of two
> separate issues.

I have nothing against you having an opinion on what should be done and
nor do I shy of receiving adverse criticism on a public mailing list.

Also the following article [1],

        http://lwn.net/Articles/543339/#Comments    

keeps reminding me that I am the one who has breached the trust.  I
don't think I have breached anyone's trust.

I ported the ox-html.el and ox-odt.el exporters when no one else -
including Bastien or Carsten - were available to invest substantial time
to port the work.  Remember this was done with the sole intention of
off-loading some of the work of Nicolas Goaziou.  Remember the porting
was done when Ngz work was in alpha or late-alpha stage. 

(You seem to respond donning the hat of a community manager.)

Bastien has been consistently rubbing me on the wrong side for a *very
long* time.  Do you think Bastien resorting to rewriting of history
[2][3] is a proper etiquette?  There is a limit to how absurd a person
can behave.  What is wrong, if I request that my work be reverted, given
the circumstances?

By continuing to work on Org-mode, I am supporting Bastien which I don't
intend to.  I don't approve of what he is doing (in his role as a
maintainer) nor do I think that the generaly public should be coaxed in
to responding favorably to Bastien's call for donations (particularly
for impending Org-8.0 release.)

[1] I have not received my $1 or any GNU stickers
[2] http://orgmode.org/w/?p=org-mode.git;a=commitdiff;h=b7c776418868966b980a0b1be89bf7bfabde7685
[3] http://orgmode.org/w/?p=org-mode.git;a=commitdiff;h=72879342d8ba67fe3b1f3f8cb67f37bfffa1a529

Jambunathan K.

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:33:04 +0530
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> By continuing to work on Org-mode, I am supporting Bastien which I don't
> intend to.

No.  If you continue working on Org-mode, you support the community of
Org-mode _users_!

This is not about you against Bastien; this is about you against the
community.  If you didn't understand this by now, I don't know what
other arguments could ever show you the ugly, selfish side of your
behavior.

> I don't approve of what he is doing (in his role as a maintainer)

Then do what disagreeing people do in these circumstance: fork.  Then
let the users judge whether they value your branch more than the other
one.  This is the Free Software paradigm for solving irreconcilable
disagreements.  By contrast, what you are trying to do is punish all
the Org users on behalf of _personal_ feud between you and the head
maintainer.  This is why everybody and their dog turn against you,
don't you see it?