From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin_Le_Gouguec?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs? Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 11:40:52 +0200 Message-ID: <874ksshyl7.fsf@gmail.com> References: <9mmFgzvrBwjt_n_VJyaJdXINraNi5HsGpwq-0MLeKiJA7kG2BQA4uywrzjyz7lpRS0OZDpjEi8lspOKYUA7P_QsODsDew_8nbH960G55fmY=@protonmail.com> <97DA7804-F647-4A1D-B8E0-AFFE7A324C64@gmail.com> <87d07xamrg.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <878silajdl.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87tv18pyh4.fsf@russet.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="121512"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Yuan Fu , Richard Stallman , Eric Abrahamsen , Emacs developers , Stefan Monnier , Phillip Lord , ndame@protonmail.com To: Philippe Vaucher Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu May 07 11:41:32 2020 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 1jWd23-000VVl-U6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 11:41:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60792 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWd23-00008c-0q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 05:41:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35502) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWd1V-00085i-GO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 05:40:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::333]:52390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWd1U-00021M-59; Thu, 07 May 2020 05:40:57 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id 188so5700247wmc.2; Thu, 07 May 2020 02:40:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cnrdIu5qfzv1Y+08v6VpsElwY4cVLOHr0Aq7fGyiudk=; b=mkxXkTmaCw9pKTAo4+Lt9hJ/8m40ywtjevG0cZFkceIfBPe6vC83eVfkkhmOlxav+Z 2W5DTPi5JgRrqmKTwbIxayPWhXR5KhTdqmyCuTm8xNSnULAXMd8GOjg8aib6WdO4xgT9 eM1JVjDnKVd1BMabLTOMplygagzpckT3w7CI3rd49tU/NQ/NzSHtf65j2UrFuuDoi0ds y6S225jsS2kpiAzTL8GlMhUvmu9Ccp+UZpGK2AKn6+0IkTb5CKQq4oXT2KtK+x7ssfti dTWVlky/QTC3Nbm3w0mtrpQSBb+jk7+ngog03IL+QwTfE4d2coZd4HF9yUX3hRkOxhmJ Fu+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cnrdIu5qfzv1Y+08v6VpsElwY4cVLOHr0Aq7fGyiudk=; b=H9WiKAi2n5ncodTzUKMSYTky6klyNeeiP50jbzVjfLmm416O1HQbTUrLUxnXbh0vpa dXygBXEUXetDK0BM6dvmv8qP7aHOFz9WiBXPsB7I5BG9YXIoqMWgjwp8k1/n0TLCQHLq sKv37tCxcu+e3GMV7SHN9MulylZketT2fvFEAoK/DdwnA2bQrJksapWE2r5BhJ8zCxcf ljwAtwr/3EG1W/XlYcRY8M/0DzZLE66QGLZrVkfaxkkjUHoesw/z2uYCBYGcndQw9pVc FsqYgRIPJAKkQLVYOxFea3B6c3/pLMcLycZuV9DPg3ZJgMzvJ2HPMTNrNIXvgR0hHUZ+ mOiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZRz6iG8FkfrzN+bt7qOQY9ceCSNdv6BB+gXDDSQqSXeoBJE7Az 7QoiIoJGD8gA30WPlYEEbwg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJRumHHu/dyc8ZHEUrnH7lPLJcEgvKFfntmwi04YsZyG/fUx6cImjI5TLP7BJ+4IUcHvdaxew== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:49:: with SMTP id 70mr8666366wma.184.1588844454265; Thu, 07 May 2020 02:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from my-little-tumbleweed (200.143.13.109.rev.sfr.net. [109.13.143.200]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t4sm2374075wmf.33.2020.05.07.02.40.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 07 May 2020 02:40:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Philippe Vaucher's message of "Thu, 7 May 2020 09:13:32 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::333; envelope-from=kevin.legouguec@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm1-x333.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:249158 Archived-At: Philippe Vaucher writes: >> > It is not terrible lot of work for people to deal with those issues, >> > but I wouldn't assume a simple program can. >> >> The better option is to stop requiring copyright paperwork. >> It is harmful to the Emacs project. > > Do copyright paperwork really protect Emacs from anything anyway? I > never saw any problems in other open source/free/libre softwares which > didn't do that. It's for sure a big hurdle to new contributors. The best assessment of copyright assignment effectiveness I know of is Bradley Kuhn's recap of the issue in 2012[1]: > Simply put, the GPL violation defending lawyers have gotten more > obsessed than ever with delay tactics. They try to raise every > spurious issue they can think of to delay you, distract you, or > otherwise try to avoid bringing their client into compliance with the > terms of GPL. If you don't hold all the copyrights, they'll focus on > that issue. For example, I had an executive of a large computer maker > tell me that his lawyers say "copyright infringement claims are > legally invalid unless you hold a majority of the copyrights". This > is completely asinine and clearly incorrect in the USA, but violators > make these arguments all the time. As another example: I was once > deposed in a court case for 8 hours about the topic whether or not > BusyBox's configuration files magically made Erik Andersen's > copyrights fail to appear in the binary work. That's a spurious > argument that I spent 8 hours refuting, yet the violator's lawyer > again brought it up in the Court as a defense that we had to refute. To me that sort of suggests that copyright assignment is neither sufficient (you still need enough resources to overcome "every spurious issue" the defending lawyers will throw at you) nor necessary (since Bradley considers it "asinine" to say "an infringement claim is invalid without holding a majority of the copyrights"). As a layman on these matters (like most potential contributors, I assume), it would definitely help if the FSF maintained a list[2] of successful and/or failed GPL enforcement cases *where assignment was a decisive factor*. As things stand it's hard to correlate "enforcement success" with "copyright assignment", so it's really an act of faith we ask of new contributors=E2=80=A6 [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/530239/ [2] Sort of like this FSFE page: https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases