Re: M-x send-emacs-patch

[Richard Copley <rcopley@gmail.com>]

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.