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: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:17:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87fvn0mk25.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <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> <83k3cr58o2.fsf@gnu.org> <530BAEE5.9040004@online.de> <87ppmatkpe.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wqgfsxsr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wqgf37n4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ha7gshu9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <871tyko9l5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87eh2ks897.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393791505 15168 80.91.229.3 (2 Mar 2014 20:18:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:18:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 02 21:18:35 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 1WKCqH-0007Gb-UJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:18:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36544 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKCqH-0001Xa-E6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 15:18:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53911) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKCqE-0001XV-Rb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 15:18:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKCqD-0005rc-Ql for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 15:18:30 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58032) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKCqD-0005rY-N7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 15:18:29 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36975 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKCqC-0008Bx-Su; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 15:18:29 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 07109E9C2D; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 21:17:54 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87eh2ks897.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (Stephen J. Turnbull's message of "Mon, 03 Mar 2014 04:36:20 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (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:170065 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > > But you can't. There is no point in slapping a license on a > > distribution when you don't have standing to sue over license breaches > > since you are not holding copyright to any significant part of it. > > > > It only weakens the GPL if you start creating situations where it cannot > > be taken seriously and/or enforced. > > I see. So the widespread use of GPL in projects that don't collect > assignments is another excuse to declare a piece of software an enemy > of the movement. > > Seriously, I disagree. Since I cannot even figure out what your strawman is supposed to refer to, I am not sure what you disagree with. > > > OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice ... doesn't that undermine your point? > > > > If you take a look at R.C.Weir venting off in the comment section > > of basically every publication delivering a LibreOffice release > > announcement, that "a little miffed" is not a mere hypothetical. > > Once again, if he's really venting about the license (and not about > "who is the real successor to Sun OpenOffice.org"), that's crazy. It's rather hard to tell what it is _supposed_ to be about. But it is not hard to see the license-originating asymmetry of the overall situation as a driving factor. > If Apache didn't want to enable one-way code flow, they wouldn't use a > permissive license. They are fine with one-way flow into proprietary products. They tend to be less than enthused about GPLed or LGPLed reuse. It's like selling a donkey stallion of your own good breed to a mule breeding farm and you find they mate him with donkeys rather than mares, creating breeding donkeys competing with your own business. In other terms: proprietary products don't compete with their community and their ideas of freedom. I understand what this is about, but it does demonstrate a sore spot of the model. > (Who is R.C.Weir, anyway? I seem to recall a Grateful Dead guitarist > by that name....) I think he is something like the principal maintainer of Apache OpenOffice or close to that, but I don't have all that much of a clue. -- David Kastrup