From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: License Notice for ELPA packages Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2024 07:32:57 +0300 Message-ID: <86y142wyrq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86jzfnyevy.fsf@gnu.org> <874j6rzqo0.fsf@posteo.net> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13798"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: philipk@posteo.net, arash@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, info@protesilaos.com, jemarch@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 08 06:33:55 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sn9cZ-0003Rj-DC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2024 06:33:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sn9bp-0002dq-00; Sun, 08 Sep 2024 00:33:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sn9bl-0002dO-9Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2024 00:33:06 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sn9bh-0007iQ-Ji; Sun, 08 Sep 2024 00:33:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=Bol1g15hCrDzouM4wHPZU/ZVWgLKCODS9UfwXTUb828=; b=dc9fWUrtu8YG lvX33gd2l1LS/+muYsQ5xWd4M9lJfAgDij3yX0xTfVgD5zXpo5k/yb0Cvzgy+zv2do/ouWNkxJ+lh 7T/i9f/vFGSCeHwpscX4teCKIpbFrhHv1nn8rqTuSSjr6agxIvjpqSGeG46MIEz4d7/7gRuMfJYx3 q3bjhSykXKFXbehH/3y/57+PfJ10zdTJaADZj+V7KJlm9d/YYbPMz/JA8X96TvNWEfCDaOmu1qjCp KwRZ1lCXnBsx37IL/3hgf2iPjDM5UQvZcO6+ygxT7bMQC5NLmgypeS0K6zfz/yBBccgjnJIsZfIUh YCX8gRSBRTisjxDuSEQuSA==; In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sat, 07 Sep 2024 17:11:23 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:323498 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Arash Esbati , > emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Kangas , > "Protesilaos Stavrou" , Jose E. Marchesi > > Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 17:11:23 -0400 > > > As ELPA packages are regarded to be part of Emacs (and distributed under > > the same license), the comment should say "is part of GNU Emacs". > > I don't think it's that clear. > It is considered as part of GNU Emacs in the sense that copyright > assignments that cover Emacs also cover these files, but it is not > considered as part of the GNU Emacs in the sense that it's not > (currently) included in the distributed tarball. > > So historically we have accepted both "is part of GNU Emacs" and "is NOT > part of GNU Emacs". IMO the better choice is to say neither. Some ELPA packages are also part of Emacs, so I guess they should say "is part of GNU Emacs"? Also, what will we do when we devise a way to bundle ELPA packages with Emacs release tarballs? rewrite the notice? Something to keep in mind for the future, I guess.