M-x send-emacs-patch

M-x send-emacs-patch

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

There seems to be a (perhaps natural) reluctance to send patches with
`M-x report-emacs-bug'.  Perhaps because it feels presumptuous or
something?  I don't know?

Perhaps Emacs should have an `M-x send-emacs-patch' function, that could
also be featured (prominently?) in the mode line?

It would basically just open up a mail buffer like `M-x
report-emacs-bug' does, but the text could be different.  It could
mention stuff like how we prefer patches to be formatted, and the
copyright assignment thing, but mainly point out HEY! WE WANT PATCHES!
YES! SEND THEM TO US!

And then they'd end up in the debbugs bug tracker.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> There seems to be a (perhaps natural) reluctance to send patches with `M-x
> report-emacs-bug'. Perhaps because it feels presumptuous or something? I
> don't know?

Also because a patch isn't a bug, it's the solution to a bug. It seemed weird
to me at first too.

I think `M-x mail-emacs-developers' might be more general.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 05/04/2016 03:19 AM, John Wiegley wrote:

> I think `M-x mail-emacs-developers' might be more general.

That one sounds like it'll mail emacs-devel, doesn't it?

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:

> On 05/04/2016 03:19 AM, John Wiegley wrote:
>
>> I think `M-x mail-emacs-developers' might be more general.
>
> That one sounds like it'll mail emacs-devel, doesn't it?

Yeah, I think people already know how to do that, and don't feel afraid
of doing so.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:

> On 05/04/2016 03:19 AM, John Wiegley wrote:
>> I think `M-x mail-emacs-developers' might be more general.

> That one sounds like it'll mail emacs-devel, doesn't it?

Ok, send-emacs-patch then. :)

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Uwe Brauer]

>>> "Lars" == Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

   > There seems to be a (perhaps natural) reluctance to send patches with
   > `M-x report-emacs-bug'.  Perhaps because it feels presumptuous or
   > something?  I don't know?

Right I just wanted to send a small doc patch and did miss such a
function. So I think this is a good idea.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Uwe Brauer]

   > Also because a patch isn't a bug, it's the solution to a bug. It
   > seemed weird to me at first too.

But we are supposed to send features request via report-emacs-bug which
is also odd.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Yuri Khan]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> wrote:

> But we are supposed to send features request via report-emacs-bug which
> is also odd.

(defalias request-emacs-feature report-emacs-bug)? :)

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Kaushal Modi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1106 bytes --]

That's a neat idea.

So instead of a new send-emacs-patch function, should we simply make it an
alias for report-emacs-bug.

Then we need to just add more info in report-emacs-bug docstring and reword
the email body to that they would apply to bug reports, feature requests
and patch submissions.

Or..

Instead of a new function, rename report-emacs-bug to non-interactive
function report-emacs that accepts arguments like 'bug, 'feature or 'patch.
Then based on the argument, we can have different wording in the email
body, choose to dump the user's emacs state containing variables, last
executed commands, etc.

Then we have wrapper interactive functions like report-emacs-bug,
request-emacs-feature and send-emacs-patch that calls that same base
function with different arguments.

On Thu, May 5, 2016, 6:31 AM Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> wrote:
>
> > But we are supposed to send features request via report-emacs-bug which
> > is also odd.
>
> (defalias request-emacs-feature report-emacs-bug)? :)
>
> --

-- 
Kaushal Modi

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1589 bytes --]

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> writes:

> So instead of a new send-emacs-patch function, should we simply make it an
> alias for report-emacs-bug. 

No, the new function would not snarf the Emacs environment, and it would
have a different text.  So it'd be a completely different function.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Kaushal Modi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

>
> > So instead of a new send-emacs-patch function, should we simply make it
> an
> > alias for report-emacs-bug.
>
> No, the new function would not snarf the Emacs environment, and it would
> have a different text.  So it'd be a completely different function.


That's what I thought too, and so had also proposed the alternative:

> Or..

> Instead of a new function, rename report-emacs-bug to non-interactive
function report-emacs that accepts arguments like 'bug, 'feature or 'patch.
Then based on the argument, we can have different wording in the email
body, choose to dump the user's emacs state containing variables, last
executed commands, etc.
> Then we have wrapper interactive functions like report-emacs-bug,
request-emacs-feature and send-emacs-patch that calls that same base
function with different arguments.
-- 

-- 
Kaushal Modi

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1347 bytes --]

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Copley]

Some caution is required. Anyone can report a bug, but almost everyone
is not allowed to send a patch. I understand it correctly, if someone
like me who can't or won't sign the FSF paperwork sends a patch to one
of the lists, it can make it harder for that idea to get used in
Emacs. It's frustrating (for me at least - I have dozens of patches
that I'd love to share with the community), but isn't that the way
things are?

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 921 bytes --]

On 2016-05-05 16:22, Richard Copley wrote:
> Some caution is required. Anyone can report a bug, but almost everyone
> is not allowed to send a patch. I understand it correctly, if someone
> like me who can't or won't sign the FSF paperwork sends a patch to one
> of the lists, it can make it harder for that idea to get used in
> Emacs. It's frustrating (for me at least - I have dozens of patches
> that I'd love to share with the community)

Is there a reason why you don't want to sign an assignment? If you have concerns about the process, I find that https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign do a good job of explaining it.

Alternatively, you could just release your patches in the public domain; that would be fine too, according to http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/conditions.text

Clément.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Copley]

Yes there is, but I wouldn't like to go into it in a public forum.
Can patches to a GPL'd project be public domain?

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

On 2016-05-05 16:42, Richard Copley wrote:
> Yes there is, but I wouldn't like to go into it in a public forum.
> Can patches to a GPL'd project be public domain?

Yes, at least according to http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/conditions.text:

    This means that if you want to contribute software to GNU, you have to
    do something to give us legal permission to use it.  There are three
    ways this can be done:

    (...)

    * Put the code in the public domain.  Then there is nothing to stop
    hoarding of modified versions, but we can still use the program in GNU.

Hopefully that works for you!
Clément.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Copley]

On 5 May 2016 at 22:03, Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-05-05 16:42, Richard Copley wrote:
>> Yes there is, but I wouldn't like to go into it in a public forum.
>> Can patches to a GPL'd project be public domain?
>
> Yes, at least according to http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/conditions.text:
>
>     This means that if you want to contribute software to GNU, you have to
>     do something to give us legal permission to use it.  There are three
>     ways this can be done:
>
>     (...)
>
>     * Put the code in the public domain.  Then there is nothing to stop
>     hoarding of modified versions, but we can still use the program in GNU.
>
> Hopefully that works for you!

Thanks Clément. It's not my place to decide on this, but it doesn't
sound to me as though it addresses my question, which is different
from the question of whether a patch would be acceptable to the FSF;
namely, does the GPL prevent me from putting a modification to a
GPL-licensed work into the public domain in the first place?

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 05/06/2016 12:16 AM, Richard Copley wrote:

> Thanks Clément. It's not my place to decide on this, but it doesn't
> sound to me as though it addresses my question, which is different
> from the question of whether a patch would be acceptable to the FSF;
> namely, does the GPL prevent me from putting a modification to a
> GPL-licensed work into the public domain in the first place?

Your code will be public domain. The combined work will still be GPL.

Actually releasing your changes in the public domain in the way accepted 
by FSF will require paperwork anyway, so you must have a very particular 
reason to choose this route.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1445 bytes --]

On 2016-05-05 17:16, Richard Copley wrote:
> Thanks Clément. It's not my place to decide on this, but it doesn't
> sound to me as though it addresses my question, which is different
> from the question of whether a patch would be acceptable to the FSF;
> namely, does the GPL prevent me from putting a modification to a
> GPL-licensed work into the public domain in the first place?

Ah, sorry for the confusion. The GPL does not prevent you from releasing your contributions in the public domain (that is, it is OK to release your contributions in the public domain; the GPL doesn't prevent you to do so; CC0 is a good way to do that). In fact, your contributions will stay in the public domain even after they are integrated into Emacs (though future modifications by other volunteers will be GPL'd):

    If a program combines public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the
    public-domain part and use it as public domain code?
    (#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL)

        You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain part
        and separate it from the rest. If code was put in the public domain by its
        developer, it is in the public domain no matter where it has been.

See also https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGovAdd, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright, and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain .

Clément.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Copley]

> Actually releasing your changes in the public domain in the way accepted by
> FSF will require paperwork anyway, so you must have a very particular reason
> to choose this route.

Ah, of course. Then I think my obstacle is still in place, unfortunately.

Still, there's no reason not to make it easier to submit patches, for
those who can.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Copley]

Thanks for the clarification and references. I think I have some
hurdles to get over before I can release code into the public domain
to the FSF's satisfaction anyway.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 689 bytes --]

On 2016-05-05 17:20, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> Actually releasing your changes in the public domain in the way
> accepted by FSF will require paperwork anyway, so you must have a
> very particular reason to choose this route.

Is this the case? http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/conditions.text says the following:

    * Public domain.

    If you put the program in the public domain, we prefer to have a signed
    piece of paper--a disclaimer of rights--from you confirming this.  If the
    program is not very important, we can do without one; the worst that could
    happen is that we might some day be forced to stop using it.

Clément.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Copley]

On 5 May 2016 at 22:37, Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-05-05 17:20, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
>> Actually releasing your changes in the public domain in the way
>> accepted by FSF will require paperwork anyway, so you must have a
>> very particular reason to choose this route.
>
> Is this the case? http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/conditions.text says the following:
>
>     * Public domain.
>
>     If you put the program in the public domain, we prefer to have a signed
>     piece of paper--a disclaimer of rights--from you confirming this.  If the
>     program is not very important, we can do without one; the worst that could
>     happen is that we might some day be forced to stop using it.

In fact I do have a few commits made on my behalf, considered tiny
enough to go without a copyright assignment. Any more contributions
would be pushing it, or so I was told.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

On 2016-05-05 17:41, Richard Copley wrote:
> In fact I do have a few commits made on my behalf, considered tiny
> enough to go without a copyright assignment. Any more contributions
> would be pushing it, or so I was told.

I think these probably felt under the usual exemption for trivial changes (ie  changes that are too tiny to be copyrightable anyway AFAIU); what I'm suggesting is different: according to <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/conditions.text>, the FSF can also accept public domain patches without a signed assignment. If I understand that page correctly, there would then be no limitations on your contributions, as long as they are considered "not very important" (as opposed to "trivial").

Clément.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Copley]

> I think these probably felt under the usual exemption for trivial changes (ie  changes that are too tiny to be copyrightable anyway AFAIU); what I'm suggesting is different: according to <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/conditions.text>, the FSF can also accept public domain patches without a signed assignment. If I understand that page correctly, there would then be no limitations on your contributions, as long as they are considered "not very important" (as opposed to "trivial").

I'm not sure. The language there is in terms of whole programs, not
patches, so it doesn't apply here without some interpretation.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 873 bytes --]

On 2016-05-05 18:01, Richard Copley wrote:
>> I think these probably felt under the usual exemption for trivial changes (ie  changes that are too tiny to be copyrightable anyway AFAIU); what I'm suggesting is different: according to <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/conditions.text>, the FSF can also accept public domain patches without a signed assignment. If I understand that page correctly, there would then be no limitations on your contributions, as long as they are considered "not very important" (as opposed to "trivial").
> 
> I'm not sure. The language there is in terms of whole programs, not
> patches, so it doesn't apply here without some interpretation.

Fair enough :) At this point, I think we'll need help from someone more experienced with this process.
Hopefully someone on this list can step in!

Clément.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Richard Copley <rcopley@gmail.com> writes:

> I understand it correctly, if someone like me who can't or won't sign
> the FSF paperwork sends a patch to one of the lists, it can make it
> harder for that idea to get used in Emacs.

No, somebody else just has to write the code.  Ideas aren't
copyrightable.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Richard Copley <rcopley@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I understand it correctly, if someone like me who can't or won't sign
>> the FSF paperwork sends a patch to one of the lists, it can make it
>> harder for that idea to get used in Emacs.
>
> No, somebody else just has to write the code.  Ideas aren't
> copyrightable.

(But there is no point in submitting code that you know can't be
accepted.)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Can patches to a GPL'd project be public domain?

Yes, they can be.  Talk with assign@gnu.org about how to do that.
-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > I'm not sure. The language there is in terms of whole programs, not
  > patches, so it doesn't apply here without some interpretation.

That is correct.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1966 bytes --]

On 2016-05-06 15:18, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > I'm not sure. The language there is in terms of whole programs, not
>   > patches, so it doesn't apply here without some interpretation.
> 
> That is correct.

Reading this again, I find the interpretation straightforward, actually. Here's the whole passage:

    > This means that if you want to contribute software to GNU, you have to
    > do something to give us legal permission to use it.  There are three
    > ways this can be done:
    >
    > * Assign the copyright to the Free Software Foundation.
    > This allows the FSF to act to stop violations of the GPL.
    >
    > * Keep the copyright and release the program yourself under the GNU
    > GPL.  (This alternative is too impractical for contributions to a
    > preexisting FSF-copyrighted GNU program.)
    >
    > * Put the code in the public domain.  Then there is nothing to stop
    > hoarding of modified versions, but we can still use the program in GNU.

The second point explicitly mentions contributions to preexisting programs.  But
in any case, I think we're waiting for a confirmation or rebuttal from actual
members of the Emacs project here: will the Emacs project accept non-crucial patches
placed in the public domain, without paperwork? To me, the following passage
suggests that it should; however, it would be nice to have confirmation:

    > If you put the program in the public domain, we prefer to have a signed
    > piece of paper--a disclaimer of rights--from you confirming this.  If the
    > program is not very important, we can do without one; the worst that could
    > happen is that we might some day be forced to stop using it.

Cheers,
Clément.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Copley]

On 6 May 2016 at 21:09, Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-05-06 15:18, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>>
>>   > I'm not sure. The language there is in terms of whole programs, not
>>   > patches, so it doesn't apply here without some interpretation.
>>
>> That is correct.
>
> Reading this again, I find the interpretation straightforward, actually. Here's the whole passage:
>
>     > This means that if you want to contribute software to GNU, you have to
>     > do something to give us legal permission to use it.  There are three
>     > ways this can be done:
>     >
>     > * Assign the copyright to the Free Software Foundation.
>     > This allows the FSF to act to stop violations of the GPL.
>     >
>     > * Keep the copyright and release the program yourself under the GNU
>     > GPL.  (This alternative is too impractical for contributions to a
>     > preexisting FSF-copyrighted GNU program.)
>     >
>     > * Put the code in the public domain.  Then there is nothing to stop
>     > hoarding of modified versions, but we can still use the program in GNU.
>
> The second point explicitly mentions contributions to preexisting programs.  But
> in any case, I think we're waiting for a confirmation or rebuttal from actual
> members of the Emacs project here: will the Emacs project accept non-crucial patches
> placed in the public domain, without paperwork? To me, the following passage
> suggests that it should; however, it would be nice to have confirmation:
>
>     > If you put the program in the public domain, we prefer to have a signed
>     > piece of paper--a disclaimer of rights--from you confirming this.  If the
>     > program is not very important, we can do without one; the worst that could
>     > happen is that we might some day be forced to stop using it.
>
> Cheers,
> Clément.

It's kind of everyone to take an interest, but I'm aware of the
arguments and, for now, my decision stands.

The obstacle I mentioned is a minor one and nothing unusual. I'm
employed as a programmer on a proprietary product and I'm reluctant to
approach my employer. That isn't intended to reflect badly on the
organization. We're not a software company. We do good work and I'm
proud to be part of it.

"Dozens of patches" was an unintentional exaggeration. Some of my
patches are old and no longer needed and some are of limited
applicability. There are a few very small changes that might be
marginally useful, but seriously, they are not worth a lot of effort.

If I have anything more useful in future I will reconsider.

Sorry to have hijacked the thread.

Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

      > > If you put the program in the public domain, we prefer to have a signed
      > > piece of paper--a disclaimer of rights--from you confirming this.  If the
      > > program is not very important, we can do without one; the worst that could
      > > happen is that we might some day be forced to stop using it.

The case of a separate program and the case of a contribution to Emacs
are different.

When people contribute a new GNU package, we don't ask for any legal papers
unless they want the FSF to enforce the GPL for it.

Emacs already is an FSF-copyrighted GNU package.  We could consider accepting
a change without legal papers, but it would be an exception.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.