socks.el to be included?

socks.el to be included?

[Michael Albinus]

Hi,

url-gw.el does autoload socks.el. Tramp 2.1 does it also for gateway
methods. WIBNI socks.el could be added to the trunk, say under lisp/net?

The most recent version I've found is located on savannah, under the w3
project. Copyrights seem to be OK (assigned to FSF, authors are Bill
Perry and Dave Love).

Best regards, Michael.

Re: socks.el to be included?

[Richard Stallman]

It appears that socks is useful, so I have nothing against installing it,
supposing the legal situation is ok.

    The most recent version I've found is located on savannah, under the w3
    project. Copyrights seem to be OK (assigned to FSF, authors are Bill
    Perry and Dave Love).

If it says in the file that those are the authors, that is not
necessarily the case.  Often the main authors don't update such lists
when they accept contributions from others.

So we need to make sure that they really ARE the only authors, or find
out who else did contribute and DTRT.

    url-gw.el does autoload socks.el. Tramp 2.1 does it also for gateway
    methods.

Lisp code in Emacs should not try to use Lisp files which are not part
of Emacs.  So each of those uses of socks constitutes bugs.  Those
calls to socks should not have been installed while socks was not part
of Emacs.  It seems inevitable that Emacs 22.1 will contain these bugs,
and that bothers me.

If we can fix the bugs by installing socks, that's fine.  But we need
to make sure that is legally ok (see above).  If we can't fix the bugs
that way, we have to fix them by changing url-gw.el and Tramp not to
use socks.

Re: socks.el to be included?

[Michael Albinus]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     The most recent version I've found is located on savannah, under the w3
>     project. Copyrights seem to be OK (assigned to FSF, authors are Bill
>     Perry and Dave Love).
>
> If it says in the file that those are the authors, that is not
> necessarily the case.  Often the main authors don't update such lists
> when they accept contributions from others.
>
> So we need to make sure that they really ARE the only authors, or find
> out who else did contribute and DTRT.

In the w3 CVS repository, there are only 9 revisions of socks.el, all
submitted by either Bill or Dave. The oldest revision is from 1998.

ChangeLogs claim "Wed Sep 4 02:09:08 1996" as initial version of
socks.el. Only one ChangeLog entry with a different submitter:

1999-11-09  Andrew Mazillius  <andrew_mazillius@pee.pioneer.be>

I've checked it in CVS; the corresponding patch is tiny (6 lines). But
it might be worth to check whether Andrew has signed the papers
already. If not, does he need to be contacted?

We could also ask Bill and Dave for other details, but I doubt they
will remember more than what was written in the ChangeLogs. The last
change of socks.el was 2002-01-22 (according to both ChangeLog and CVS
history).

>     url-gw.el does autoload socks.el. Tramp 2.1 does it also for gateway
>     methods.
>
> Lisp code in Emacs should not try to use Lisp files which are not part
> of Emacs.  So each of those uses of socks constitutes bugs.  Those
> calls to socks should not have been installed while socks was not part
> of Emacs.  It seems inevitable that Emacs 22.1 will contain these bugs,
> and that bothers me.
>
> If we can fix the bugs by installing socks, that's fine.  But we need
> to make sure that is legally ok (see above).  If we can't fix the bugs
> that way, we have to fix them by changing url-gw.el and Tramp not to
> use socks.

For Tramp there is no problem. I said "Tramp 2.1", which is not part
of Emacs yet. In fact my request is just preparing to migrate to Tramp
2.1 in the trunk.

For url-gw.el: I agree, it seems to be a bug. OTOH nobody did claim
for it until now, so it is not a serious one I guess.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: socks.el to be included?

[Richard Stallman]

    ChangeLogs claim "Wed Sep 4 02:09:08 1996" as initial version of
    socks.el. Only one ChangeLog entry with a different submitter:

    1999-11-09  Andrew Mazillius  <andrew_mazillius@pee.pioneer.be>

    I've checked it in CVS; the corresponding patch is tiny (6 lines).

I think that is fine.  What about before it went into CVS?
Is it clear that it wasn't released anywhere else before?

Re: socks.el to be included?

[Michael Albinus]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     ChangeLogs claim "Wed Sep 4 02:09:08 1996" as initial version of
>     socks.el. Only one ChangeLog entry with a different submitter:
>
>     1999-11-09  Andrew Mazillius  <andrew_mazillius@pee.pioneer.be>
>
>     I've checked it in CVS; the corresponding patch is tiny (6 lines).
>
> I think that is fine.  What about before it went into CVS?
> Is it clear that it wasn't released anywhere else before?

socks.el carries to the following copyright information:

;;; Copyright (c) 1996 - 1998 by William M. Perry <wmperry@cs.indiana.edu>
;;; Copyright (c) 1996, 97, 98, 1999, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

The oldest ChangeLog entry is:

Wed Sep  4 02:09:08 1996  William M. Perry  <wmperry@cs.indiana.edu>

* socks.el: Initial revision

It looks like ChangeLog contains the whole history. At least the version
on savannah, which shall be taken to migrate.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: socks.el to be included?

[Richard Stallman]

Ok, let's install socks.el.

Re: socks.el to be included?

[Michael Albinus]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Ok, let's install socks.el.

Done.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: socks.el to be included?

[Glenn Morris]

Michael Albinus wrote:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ok, let's install socks.el.
>
> Done.

Please fix the copyright header. The first line should probably just
be removed.

;; Copyright (C) 1996 - 1998 by William M. Perry <wmperry@cs.indiana.edu>
;; Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002,
;;   2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Re: socks.el to be included?

[David Kastrup]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> Michael Albinus wrote:
>
>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Ok, let's install socks.el.
>>
>> Done.
>
> Please fix the copyright header. The first line should probably just
> be removed.
>
> ;; Copyright (C) 1996 - 1998 by William M. Perry <wmperry@cs.indiana.edu>
> ;; Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002,
> ;;   2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Once one has made sure that the "Author:" attribution is there instead
(no idea whether this is the case here).

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: socks.el to be included?

[Michael Albinus]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Please fix the copyright header. The first line should probably just
>> be removed.

Fixed. Thanks for the hint, I didn't know how to handle parallel
copyright statements.

> Once one has made sure that the "Author:" attribution is there instead
> (no idea whether this is the case here).

That was already OK.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: socks.el to be included?

[David Kastrup]

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Please fix the copyright header. The first line should probably just
>>> be removed.
>
> Fixed. Thanks for the hint, I didn't know how to handle parallel
> copyright statements.

When there are parallel copyrights, both statements need to remain.
But in Emacs, with very few exceptions, copyright is assigned to the
FSF, and the original copyright statement is no longer factually
correct.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: socks.el to be included?

[Richard Stallman]

    > Please fix the copyright header. The first line should probably just
    > be removed.
    >
    > ;; Copyright (C) 1996 - 1998 by William M. Perry <wmperry@cs.indiana.edu>
    > ;; Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002,
    > ;;   2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Yes, it should be removed.