From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Compiled files without sources???? Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:55:35 +0900 Message-ID: <878vrepc6g.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87wrk54pzp.fsf@ginnungagap.bsc.es> <87tyf7aw9b.fsf@engster.org> <871uxgyu0u.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87vcus3slm.fsf@engster.org> <87k4b4jv8p.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <877h7444uj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87tya82mv5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ei1bzjwg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <4E3133CE.7010101@cs.ucla.edu> <4E31F0B3.3030505@cs.ucla.edu> <87mxfw90oo.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87r558ms8j.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87zkjv33w3.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87sjpn8if0.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87sjpm7lvt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312134952 3304 80.91.229.12 (31 Jul 2011 17:55:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 17:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tim Cross Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 31 19:55:48 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QnaEu-0004io-4x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:55:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60529 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnaEt-0004PU-3U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:55:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:33176) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnaEq-0004PP-IC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:55:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnaEp-00070W-OD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:55:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:43804) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnaEn-0006zY-R3; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:55:42 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCD53FA06E2; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 02:55:27 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 748011A26F8; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 02:55:35 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.1.93a under 21.5 (beta31) "ginger" cd1f8c4e81cd XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.223 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:142594 Archived-At: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 9:03 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > > Anyway, I find it bad taste to drag an internal discussion from > > the list into the limelight like that. It's not an "internal discussion". It is infringement of copyright for anyone but the FSF (technically, including members of the Emacs project publishing private branches!) to redistribute a complete Emacs of those versions verbatim. There are probably millions of copies in the wild, and in theory a for-profit distributor could be sued for statutory damages and subjected to criminal prosecution[1], and *that* is *no joke*. The public deserves to be told about this, just as they are told about other major defects such as security holes in webservers. Since this is the FSF's mistake, I can't really see it doing more than informing people that their distributions are infringing and politely requesting them to cease and desist until upstream is fixed, of course. > > The mud-slinging is detrimental to making a solid and timely fix. I don't see why. Making the fix *is* a purely internal matter. What LWN says should (and I expect will) have no effect on the fix (which is already in progress). True, the fact that even the FSF can mess up this way is going to make a few people wonder whether the downsides of copyleft are more serious than had previously been apparent. So make a solid and timely fix and those who have open minds will dismiss the whole thing as a rather large typo. Tim Cross writes: > Personally, I was surprised when I read the lead-in. I also thought it > was an 'internal' matter being dealt with, but thought it worth > pointing out, regardless of its accuracy. I also suspect it is really > only getting such attention because of emacs being a well known FSF > package and Richard's direct involvement. Of course. This is *news*. Prurient and unimportant, but that's what sells newspapers, unfortunately. > In some ways emacs' and other key FSF projects need to set the > standards, which I think was one of Richard's main points. This isn't really a question of "setting (high) standards." It's a matter of (minimal) due diligence (which is required by the license of licensees), so that the licensees can legally exercise all rights the license purports to grant. It's unfortunate that in this case the due diligence is cleaning up, rather than preventing, a mistake. Footnotes: [1] Conviction is highly unlikely in the circumstances, of course. But the law would likely be on the FSF's side as far as forcing the distributor to try to recover copies, etc., even though the distribution was 100% in good faith. That could be rather expensive for the likes of Red Hat or Canonical!