From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bastien Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:20:10 +0100 Message-ID: <87y5dqtehh.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87ober717z.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwu9iwcp.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwu9fiu0.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d2v4f5bb.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87y5dqadb9.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1363252739 8749 80.91.229.3 (14 Mar 2013 09:18:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:18:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Allen S. Rout" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jambunathan K Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 14 10:19:24 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 1UG4Jn-0000Sz-Nt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:19:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35422 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UG4JR-00064o-7i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:19:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41124) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UG4JH-00063M-I3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:18:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UG4JC-0008JX-Tb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:18:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-we0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f]:55664) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UG4JC-0008JL-N8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:18:46 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x8so1900738wey.6 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:18:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=kJXf9P7TXeDqfExjm6ysGFBUSPRj7i7J8cxvLntDdjk=; b=KdiiITLWnWVB4QYNGdIydDIJRoYvR1cFKBHjBTuaAgLNRk5eP27xMGRaI2XDPSAtVI vMjMWaC+xxVihW+V0dInuehlZ0SuXGEDYIgj/h6Kqj0PndisIN5TaLeRSoBTYbukWAf2 jJ+dy+n9WOrKiPPXd/2L595+3BOdW4iOzPPArkQSMJ9N1c6mV1tmT3WvQLRfqR/QFdPg PuDAnwiDqSR6x1vYGwpExI8MuMHA9/VXVG+BH+XOfkyX2Ao/EfSLiydYm5sxqZYFAn48 vltKwS6lToHl1T1Fh8WEIh1A7IDkPTQJDyMXpTZqIp+q/VGZY/Y2ysX4ZWmBA+Oe3HTO 7J4g== X-Received: by 10.194.235.196 with SMTP id uo4mr2437326wjc.30.1363252725885; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from bzg.localdomain (mar75-2-81-56-68-112.fbx.proxad.net. [81.56.68.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ed6sm2627923wib.9.2013.03.14.02.18.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by bzg.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4A0C11C20D61; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:20:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87y5dqadb9.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:38:10 +0530") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f 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:157840 Archived-At: Jambunathan K writes: > "Allen S. Rout" writes: > >> On 03/13/2013 02:32 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >> >>> Our normal future assignment contract covers all changes to Emacs. >>> Whether it is considered a "contribution" or a "fork" is not a >>> criterion. >> >> It might be appropriate to articulate the procedure by which someone >> could bring force to a change of opinion about their future work. It >> seems wrong to claim that this assignment relationship is irrevocable, >> that it lays claim without limitation to all related work in the >> person's lifetime. > > Thanks for articulating my questions from an impersonal standpoint. > Your suggestions does intimately concern the/some points I raised. I'm personally fine with the idea of the FSF letting you revoke your copyright assignment for future changes. -- Bastien