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: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:42:54 +0530 Message-ID: <87mwu9iwcp.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87ober717z.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1363029177 25145 80.91.229.3 (11 Mar 2013 19:12:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 11 20:13:21 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 1UF89w-000427-7r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:13:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51025 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UF89Z-0003fw-UA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:12:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49091) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UF89V-0003f5-Ls for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:12:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UF89S-0006YE-Rz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:12:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-da0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]:34571) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UF89S-0006Y6-L4; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:12:50 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-da0-f52.google.com with SMTP id f10so950514dak.11 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:12:49 -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=+Yj6GrcD+wV30f1r2Wn4OM2zIu59s+ED3a1n96RnmH8=; b=tu1HEF/N7wCz579ux+aMI/NArIyEDqXrjImhstk+xrz5jzbvZYlysacyT0W5o3+Zyt 0v0mQiI8xpLywqlPIkz0M9jlIbr7EjBpVq9ZfEpNNQ1ONHPhxGvN12HwHw0rZ88/xdtL mb+Qg9BbjMtzANCKGKifKB++x9Vgbr9qILlyXBomLruJxw9/lxlufzzcSDAa17K0EtHg FJxtuIiGQkwFg7p5SkInZoEZ2AAtTHUvuXm+rzLJdSkZA1OplzeDWLme1BaTHJtKO9mG 0MdS0UCA7tnV8WFZrGV6ZQfdRVPEIIdt3W4h9aGxi8vjnMCEU+USVsmbLN4ZQbADXEde 9Z7g== X-Received: by 10.68.222.163 with SMTP id qn3mr20164578pbc.77.1363029169689; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.72.244]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 1sm21555001pba.32.2013.03.11.12.12.45 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:12:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:58:25 -0400") 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: 2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234 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:157742 Archived-At: Richard Richard Stallman writes: > Please note that the FSF does not, as a general rule, agree > to retraction of a copyright assignment. The question of retraction doesn't arise. One retracts what is assigned and I haven't assigned anything. There is a difference between the code that is merged (already) and the code that is proposed to be merged. The differnce is important and substantial. Someone in this thread pointed out that Copyright assignment is not an ongoing process but a historical event that happens in time. FSF has my support and sympathies. I have looked at the paper I have signed. The only statement that remotely touches the case under discussion is the item (2). I am not used to legalese and I might have overlooked something. If you point to me the specific clause which says FSF owns copyright for un-merged and possibly un-written works then I am willing to go over that section and satisfy myself of the (unwitting) error I might have committed. Even if I feel bitter by how FSF is handling my request, other contributors will be warned that their contributions will be appropriated away against their wishes, if they were sign a copyright. If the FSF forcibly takes away the copyright against my wishes it amounts to stealing or snatching away by force. AFAICS, the spirit of the FSF assignment is this: I assign copyright unless I state otherwise. Now, I am explicitly stating that I don't want to assign copyright for some part of my work. Hoping to hear from you. Hoping for a fair treatment, Jambunathan K.