From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jambunathan K Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:02:18 +0530 Message-ID: <878v52slbh.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87ober717z.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwu9iwcp.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwu9fiu0.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d2v4f5bb.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87r4jjp2d2.fsf@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364805162 12342 80.91.229.3 (1 Apr 2013 08:32:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 08:32:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: stephen@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, subhan.tindall@rentrakmail.com, Dmitry Gutov To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 01 10:33:08 2013 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 1UMaAu-0000BZ-05 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:33:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33759 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UMaAV-0008DC-4n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:32:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35502) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UMaAP-0008D7-0u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:32:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UMaAL-0006O4-4d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:32:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:46713) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UMaAK-0006Nk-VC; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:32:33 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id fa10so1209393pad.41 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:32:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=P1WT2QIWucAnW89HOk+cQjplb1j2NUOcWlWEouSHsdI=; b=iWiaSJfHh+rH10JLMRQgF56W7ED71S3oghQV+V80bg0IEV9bTV4oQEIHMDW22aTSWI E8QIrDGWLKLtshqbWbNCU9ywCXL/rh/ewfjksVLddZux6olXXWwTSQzZWvT9VSvuopK4 6ZFnKiYDorrRoSGzvrdX8l6pKXm+RdAKkJ0+Jql56EpgYcszCChqpkbogzFJE3z43swY R9DUnWt8PFQBgD3BPIgWu1j72vGA8ahCgCUyI/yd/hHHzFSIslcrEfyEUkkTOqbE2RFk 5uvu1RWaR356QL3x9A0Rjnwakaqkzd/AUtCUBy/c+pNVDc4hzj9zDAKEULNkINhrAPE9 T0vQ== X-Received: by 10.68.253.137 with SMTP id aa9mr5488789pbd.26.1364805152210; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from debian-6.05 ([101.63.170.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oq3sm14410300pac.16.2013.04.01.01.32.28 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:32:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:30:05 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.220.54 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:158508 Archived-At: Richard Stallman 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.