From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:27:24 +0100 Message-ID: <8761mys077.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <52FD9F1D.50205@yandex.ru> <83mwhucg1h.fsf@gnu.org> <878ute589i.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83d2iqc84m.fsf@gnu.org> <87wqgxkcr9.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n41db0d.fsf@gnu.org> <52FE2985.4070703@yandex.ru> <831tz5daes.fsf@gnu.org> <8738jlohd6.fsf@yandex.ru> <83txc1bl83.fsf@gnu.org> <5300189A.9090208@yandex.ru> <83wqgv9fbj.fsf@gnu.org> <20140216180712.236069f6@forcix.jorgenschaefer.de> <83sirj9cyp.fsf@gnu.org> <20140217203145.71a849f7@forcix.jorgenschaefer.de> <837g8t8ouc.fsf@gnu.org> <20140219080524.25689b6b@forcix.jorgenschaefer.de> <87fvnfqyfv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396027663 26113 80.91.229.3 (28 Mar 2014 17:27:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:27:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Michal Nazarewicz Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 28 18:27:53 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WTaZL-0002T6-K9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:27:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35159 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTaZL-0007Xu-6u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:27:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37736) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTaZI-0007Xb-31 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:27:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTaZG-0002Ma-Vy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:27:48 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:35490) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTaZG-0002MW-Sd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:27:46 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42664 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTaZ8-000458-VC; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:27:39 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F4137E0F34; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:27:24 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Michal Nazarewicz's message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:00:59 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:171082 Archived-At: Michal Nazarewicz writes: >> On Wed, Feb 19 2014, David Kastrup wrote: >>> With regard to copyright assignments, you pretend that it is some magic >>> ritual of initiation. There is nobody who'd be more glad than the FSF >>> if this kind of paperwork was without merit and unneeded. > > On Thu, Mar 27 2014, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: >> There are people who would argue that this kind of paperwork is in fact >> unneeded. I admit it has merit, and I understand why lawyers want it, >> but it's not at all clear that it is worth creating this burden. > > All right, let me take a step back because it seems my argument was > worded too strongly and spawn a discussion that I did not intend. Sigh. It did not "spawn a discussion". It merely led to the thousandth iteration of the same old points that have been valid for the last 25 years. Again: what makes you think that you can contribute anything new to it? > What I'm trying to say is that copyright assignment *is* a red tape. > It *does* prevent patches from going into Emacs. What makes you think that nobody understood that? > One can put fingers in their ears and claim this in not the case Can you _please_ stop attacking the same strawmen all over? Nobody claims that this is not the case. > but such behaviour would be hurtful to Emacs. You don't seem to be able to get it into your head that some decisions involve tradeoffs. Naturally, there is a downside. But you are mistaken in your insistence that everybody buy yourself must have been too stupid in the last 25=A0years to ever notice. > The other option is to admit the issue, but say GNU project chosen to > go with CAs anyway, and stop the discussion here. This is better, but > I don't think the discussion needs to stop there. There is no discussion. A discussion is something which people enter with the will to leave it with different opinions than they started with. Since this topic has been talked over backwards and forwards and discussed with lawyers for more than 25=A0years and is inherently tied to copyright law and the way the GPL works, you cannot expect the people who are in it to go into your "discussion" with the expectation to hear something new. And apparently you yourself do not accept any point of view except your own and will rather put up strawmen than accept that anybody has thought this through. > So here are some ideas that would reduce the cost of a first patch: > - Allow the first 100 patches without a CA. > - Allow electronically-signed CA. > - Allow electronically-signed CA for the first 100 patches, and then > require dead-tree CA. > - Allow multi-project CAs (perhaps a form with a list of check-boxes). > > A lawyer will tell you[1] that it increases risk and may make > enforcement harder, but your job is not to do whatever lawyers tell > you, Do you even understand that the GPL is a _legal_ tool and works through legal processes? It's like telling a bank "your job is not to do whatever security experts tell you but what makes your customers happy" with regard to electronic banking. > but weight the risks against benefits, and I *strongly* believe that > in the case of Emacs benefits of allowing the first 100 patches w/o a > CA *greatly* exceed risks. Emacs is the first application _ever_ released under the GPL. The GPL was _created_ for it. By Richard Stallman, 25 years ago, in consultation with lawyers. The processes the FSF follows are discussed with some of the best law professors in the field of copyright. That has been the case for decades. If you come to the table with "I am not a lawyer but I think you should do everything differently because I think I know better", do you really expect _any_ outcome from this "discussion" other than that you are going to convince yourself to be dealing with unreasonable people? --=20 David Kastrup