From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim Cross Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 02:23:43 +1100 Message-ID: References: <20201209125516.lenqswi7fhiscbr2@E15-2016.optimum.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000039bea205b645ff9f" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14251"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Boruch Baum , Stefan Kangas , Richard Stallman , Jean Louis , Emacs developers To: thibaut.verron@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 12 20:24:30 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1koAVK-0003af-Jl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 20:24:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57202 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koAVJ-0001XI-Ju for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 14:24:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59148) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koARh-0008AL-3s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 14:20:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]:45127) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koARf-0008Bb-2J; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 14:20:44 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id k78so11419880ybf.12; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 11:20:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TVRI6dzPoz5nghys4H9a/RrJD+9gqE2dAtG/ENvv+Zc=; b=Asieyy13fe3l2hXtHIdbflvie/9TgwyGJ5xTPLuxMZdm3mJlXK6Vu0gr6jZcfC9T7m qu36d7/DY5GX9rwIDhxhWkF1rIG0h7GKggC1KsZl3nm0+zApBd3flfihReONHKL/b3zt kzXpOjtdSAZLew7MzI1VxTcMDLd2HYBGHVv80ew+h9yqaq7hEkid0LICxQVSBTS+iPJe HR8kiF7u2EKeAJcc6qB/Ip5Me5yJYk+cyrvSqRDvnZXarT9fXcB9CFfLkFSD4FAt0Hai 0zQExCJZD/gxXjFzZRSl4KESDWeCQdzXHgNzb6LusKYfHtpr9wlcNntaMb3s6ma+OT6U n8Jw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TVRI6dzPoz5nghys4H9a/RrJD+9gqE2dAtG/ENvv+Zc=; b=bU+0oSa8pQPepIjjr7U/HZBoCQugQT+hcN9EEqSQuQUCe4iiMFFzBLj6ofDMKSTJ/b x5dvr/5LwSFBbJQZ+a2jjS8C/IX1GLpCB3RkXoeNXmU1r1tPhcc5OpzdRcj7ZKTDsp9v t0oIrXXI8iN6/vomCwhB9kRTe6tNkJxHEemgvxdJ09FJbEoUP7lM/ENVQiG2Z+YWbpSZ lBCeE4TXWhD9pvI5g7+2XZ2+M5IAy0hljP9bu+kxox7StvYe17ibfGQutASg49uYjVRV ItgUPLbp25eIbXOFVTfwpJk9EqXUl2RXJxXzh/3F4e6Pq+9LS5PUM0FyF/HkorTH/tds 8EFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53029XAeehawIHYFlqjtYXMlgMnI7eCUyJhVkc9rk0nkNUW+23UP qZ7Ve0/SxenX82NxmVOOBH9M5ZMg3koWK9WQ3uQa7CWS1DM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyA2TS6kLyNYURTob9S0bwgXL490/42R7C7KoBthR6BGn3AZjWmbHSTG4ic1Z55iXQtfZxbN4w9M1eiCE7unmM= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2c63:: with SMTP id f90mr13753774otb.325.1607786634525; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 07:23:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d; envelope-from=theophilusx@gmail.com; helo=mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -4 X-Spam_score: -0.5 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:260719 Archived-At: --00000000000039bea205b645ff9f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 21:08, Thibaut Verron wrote: > Le sam. 12 d=C3=A9c. 2020 =C3=A0 07:37, Tim Cross = a =C3=A9crit : > > > > > I also recall a discussion where some developers were worried that > assigning a copyright to the FSF was an official statement of > philosophical support, and that it was a statement they were not > willing to make. The official answer was that there is no such > statement in the copyright. > As non-GNU ELPA is primarily about having a repository of packages which fit with the FSF philosophy and which do not require copyright assignment, concerns relating to copyright assignment are not relevant. > > > Therefore, I don't think it is too much to ask that they also have thos= e > packages hosted on a platform which also supports these same philosophica= l > goals. As I understand it, non-GNU ELPA is not supposed to be a repositor= y > for all other packages where the author doe snot want to assign copyright > to the FSF. It is supposed to be for all other GPL compliant packages whe= re > the author does not want to assign copyright to the FSF. > > Or can't. In a lot of cases it turns out that contacting all > contributors to obtain copyright assignment is a difficult task, or > that some contributors are not legally allowed to transfer their > copyright. > Copyright assignment is irrelevant with respect to non-GNU ELPA. It is sort of the point. > > > I think a mandatory requirement should simply be that any packages whic= h > go into non-GNU ELPA are hosted on an approved platform. We could point t= o > a list of such hosting providers e.g. > https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html and say Grade > C or better only. . > > There is no such requirement for GNU ELPA at the moment. > Perhaps there should be. However, GNU ELPA consists of code which has had copyright assigned to the FSF, so I guess that is their call. > > > This will also have the added incentive of encouraging better hosting > options. It might even encourage GitLab for example, to enhance their > environment to meet Class B. > > Couldn't it just as well be an occasion to encourage Github to improve? > > I strongly doubt it. Github has become a significant platform for Microsoft and I see little interest from them in supporting the philosophy and goals of the FSF. > > Many people have selected Github for hosting simply because it was the > best known solution. With a little encouragement, they would probably be > willing to move to at least GitLab, which offers many of the similar > convenience features of Github. Being able to host your package in non-G= NU > ELPA might be that encouragement. > > There is a lot of inertia involved in relocating a package with > hundreds of contributors. > Hence adding a requirement to be hosted on a platform which furthers FSF goals to help combat that inertia. People will have the choice - if they want their package to go into non-GNU ELPA, move it to a more compliant hosting environment or leave it where it is and don't worry about getting your package into non-GNU ELPA. > > I agree that some of the difficulties posed by copyright assignment do > not apply for relocation (e.g. that one contributor 7 years ago whom > nobody can contact), but there is an effort involved in both. > Copyright issues are not relevant for non-GNU ELPA. --=20 regards, Tim -- Tim Cross --00000000000039bea205b645ff9f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 21:08, Thibaut= Verron <thibaut.verron@gmai= l.com> wrote:
Le sam. 12 d=C3=A9c. 2020 =C3=A0 07:37, Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> a = =C3=A9crit :
>


I also recall a discussion where some developers were worried that
assigning a copyright to the FSF was an official statement of
philosophical support, and that it was a statement they were not
willing to make. The official answer was that there is no such
statement in the copyright.

As non-GNU = ELPA is primarily about having a repository of packages which fit with the = FSF philosophy and which do not require copyright assignment, concerns rela= ting to copyright assignment are not relevant.=C2=A0

> Therefore, I don't think it is too much to ask that they also have= those packages hosted on a platform which also supports these same philoso= phical goals. As I understand it, non-GNU ELPA is not supposed to be a repo= sitory for all other packages where the author doe snot want to assign copy= right to the FSF. It is supposed to be for all other GPL compliant packages= where the author does not want to assign copyright to the FSF.

Or can't. In a lot of cases it turns out that contacting all
contributors to obtain copyright assignment is a difficult task, or
that some contributors are not legally allowed to transfer their
copyright.

Copyright assignment is irre= levant with respect to non-GNU ELPA. It is sort of the point.=C2=A0

> I think a mandatory requirement should simply be that any packages whi= ch go into non-GNU ELPA are hosted on an approved platform. We could point = to a list of such hosting providers e.g. h= ttps://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html and say Grade= C or better only. .

There is no such requirement for GNU ELPA at the moment.

Perhaps there should be. However, GNU ELPA consists of co= de which has had copyright assigned to the FSF, so I guess that is their ca= ll.

> This will also have the added incentive of encouraging better hosting = options. It might even encourage GitLab for example, to enhance their envir= onment to meet Class B.

Couldn't it just as well be an occasion to encourage Github to improve?=


I strongly doubt it. Github has become= a significant platform for Microsoft and I see little interest from them i= n supporting the philosophy and goals of the FSF.=C2=A0

=C2=A0
> Many people have selected Github for hosting simply because it was the= best known solution. With a little encouragement, they would probably be w= illing to move to at least GitLab, which offers many of the similar conveni= ence features of Github.=C2=A0 Being able to host your package in non-GNU E= LPA might be that encouragement.

There is a lot of inertia involved in relocating a package with
hundreds of contributors.

Hence adding = a requirement to be hosted on a platform which furthers FSF goals to help c= ombat that inertia. People will have the choice - if they want their packag= e to go into non-GNU ELPA, move it to a more compliant hosting environment = or leave it where it is and don't worry about getting your package into= non-GNU ELPA.=C2=A0=C2=A0

I agree that some of the difficulties posed by copyright assignment do
not apply for relocation (e.g. that one contributor 7 years ago whom
nobody can contact), but there is an effort involved in both.

Copyright issues are not relevant= for non-GNU ELPA.=C2=A0
--
regards,

Tim
=
--
Tim Cross

--00000000000039bea205b645ff9f--