unofficial mirror of emacs-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* Lawyer's evaluation
@ 2003-09-18 22:44 Richard Stallman
  2003-09-18 23:16 ` Miles Bader
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-09-18 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw)


I asked our lawyer to evaluate a recent version of the proposal.


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:34:26 -0400
To: rms@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Emacs installer question to user
In-Reply-To: Richard Stallman's message of Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:03:35 -0400
      <E19zgeN-0005T3-Ir@fencepost.gnu.org>
From: Eben Moglen <moglen@columbia.edu>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0
	tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES
	version=2.55
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)

In legal terms I think the suggestion is valid, and introduces no
problems.  In practical terms I like what he is saying, not in all
details, and believe he's on the right track.  A statement that "Emacs
is free software," and a button to get more information on free
software seems possible to me.

E


On Wednesday, 17 September 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

  In legal terms, do you see anything wrong with this suggestion?
  (You can comment in other terms too, but it's the legal opinion
  that I particularly want.)
  
  
  To: rms@gnu.org
  Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
  Subject: Re: May I publish a Windows Installer for GNU Emacs?
  Organization: The XEmacs Project
  From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
  Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:54:36 +0900
  In-Reply-To: <E19z2RO-0003KE-Vk@fencepost.gnu.org> (Richard Stallman's
   message of "Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:07:30 -0400")
  Sender: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
  X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0
  	tests=IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA
  	version=2.55
  X-Spam-Level: 
  X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
  
  >>>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
  
      rms> A message in that tone is not a constructive contribution to
      rms> deciding what we should do.
  
  OK, here's a contructive version.
  
  Paraphrase: Make sure that the dialog itself makes clear that use of
  Emacs is entirely free under copyright law.  While to those in the
  know, "Thanks!" and "I knew that!" are cute, the GNU GPL _is_ a legal
  document.  Its purpose is likely to be quite unclear to the
  uninitiated.  Those labels will occasionally be taken as a bad, if
  well-intended, joke of uncertain meaning.
  
  OTOH, I agree with the observation that users expect a EULA, and this
  is an opportunity to put something useful in front of them.
  
  Note that the GPL *is* a license, although not an "agreement".
  Without it, the user may not make copies, which we consider a natural
  part of ordinary usage.  Granted, most people will just burn a CD
  containing the whole distribution, and thus trivially satisfy the
  conditions.  But a license _is_ required, and there are some natural
  ways to go wrong (for example, just copying the installed Emacs tree,
  omitting the source distribution), so any humor may be a little risky,
  legally speaking.
  
  I suspect a terse statement of the four freedoms would fit and be
  appropriate here.  Further, I would suggest that the GPL be presented
  (1) as the legal statement of the FSF's responsibilities to the user
  (NO WARRANTY etc), so please read that part, and (2) an invitation to
  participate in improvement of the software.
  
  With (2) in mind, you might consider substituting "How can I help?" or
  "I'd like to know more!" for "I knew that!", and that button's action
  would be to display some appropriate text.  Probably the whole GNU
  Manifesto is too "heavy," but excerpts including the parts about "what
  we need", plus text specifically explaining how important "ordinary
  user" contributions such as bug reports and participation in c.emacs
  and gnu.emacs.* are, might actually be quite frequently read.
  
  Something like:
  
  ========================================================================
  
                    Thank you for choosing GNU Emacs.
  
  Please read the "GNU General Public License" displayed below.
  
  [[[[[[[[[[[[ scrollable text box containing preface and GPL ]]]]]]]]]]]]
  
                                 Summary
  
  Under copyright law, you are free to run this copy of GNU Emacs.  The
  following General Public License states and protects additional rights
  that you possess.  You need not accept or decline the License; you
  simply exercise those rights, as defined in the License, at your
  option.  Please read it to learn precisely what they are.
  
    One of those rights is make additional copies of GNU Emacs for your
  own use.  Another is to copy and redistribute it to your neighbors, as
  long as you give them a copy of everything, just as you got it.  More,
  you may add features, fix defects, or use parts of GNU Emacs for your
  own purposes, and make and distribute copies of such derived software.
  
    In case of modification, we add more complex restrictions to ensure
  that all users can exercise these rights.  According to law, if you
  redistribute copies of the software, verbatim or modified, you must
  follow the terms of the License.  Please read the License, so you may
  freely share GNU Emacs with your neighbors according to its terms.
  
    This license is extended from the Free Software Foundation, and any
  authors of modifications, to you.  Since all are free to modify and
  redistribute this software, no one can accept liability for any
  defects or problems that may arise in your use of GNU Emacs.  This is
  explained in the NO WARRANTY section of the License.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
  		       Version 2, June 1991
  
  [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ end scrollable text box ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
  
  GNU Emacs includes many contributions from both dedicated developers
  and "just plain users".  If you will use GNU Emacs and share verbatim
  copies with your neighbors, join us by clicking "Thank you all!" and
  starting to use GNU Emacs.  If you would like to know how to contribute
  more concretely, or how to use parts of GNU Emacs for your own
  purposes, click "Tell me more."
  
  ["Thank you all!"]  ["That's great!  Tell me more, without legalese."]
  
  ========================================================================
  
  Yeah, I know, all that's in the Preamble of the GPL.  But it would
  require really fine print---bad associations, there---to get all those
  statements into the first screen if we just dive into the GPL.  And
  I'm sorry, I couldn't see a good way to get "free software" in there;
  it really requires the supporting context that the Preamble gives.
  Hopefully a well-designed screen can attract them to read the Preamble
  (and the rest of the GPL).
  
  The "without legalese" phrase is a little risky; people might
  substitute clicking that button for reading the GPL.  However, this
  could be considered a reasonable tradeoff to get many people to read
  anything at all.  And sections of the GPL itself, plus pointers back
  to the full document, would be natural to include anyway.
  
  I considered that the GPL itself could be invoked by a button, but I
  think it's most likely to be read if the title is visible along with
  the summary.
  
  -- 
  Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
  University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
                 Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
                ask what your business can "do for" free software.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-18 22:44 Lawyer's evaluation Richard Stallman
@ 2003-09-18 23:16 ` Miles Bader
  2003-09-19 13:56   ` Stephen J. Turnbull
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Miles Bader @ 2003-09-18 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)


Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> I asked our lawyer to evaluate a recent version of the proposal.
...
> A statement that "Emacs is free software," and a button to get more
> information on free software seems possible to me.

Yeah, I agree -- in my mind, perhaps the _most_ important (important to
me, that is :-) thing to say while you've got the user's attention, is
`This is Free Software (as in freedom), there's a lot more of it, and a
great community to back it up.  Wanna join?'

My version is a bit fanboyish sounding, but you get the idea.

A single short and concise paragraph at the start of the longer text
seems like the right place; I don't think it has to smoothly flow into
the rest.

Come to think of it, a similar statement in the emacs splash screen,
complete with clickable button to bring up a web browser (where that's
possible; I guess in windows it should always be) wouldn't be a bad
idea.

-Miles
-- 
Yo mama's so fat when she gets on an elevator it HAS to go down.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-18 23:16 ` Miles Bader
@ 2003-09-19 13:56   ` Stephen J. Turnbull
  2003-09-22  2:02     ` Miles Bader
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2003-09-19 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: emacs-devel

>>>>> "Miles" == Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

    Miles> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

    >> I asked our lawyer to evaluate a recent version of the
    >> proposal.

[He said:]

    em> In legal terms I think the suggestion is valid, and
    em> introduces no problems.  In practical terms I like what he
    em> is saying, not in all details, and believe he's on the
    em> right track.

I suspect that a couple of those "details" have already been pointed
out by David Kastrup, and in one case I offered the following:

For

"You need not accept or decline the License; you simply exercise those
rights, as defined in the License, at your option."

substitute

"You need not accept or decline the License at this time.  At your
option, at any time you may simply exercise those additional rights,
which implies acceptance."

    >> A statement that "Emacs is free software," and a button to get
    >> more information on free software seems possible to me.

For the button, once "free software" has been mentioned in the
summary, just label the second button "More About Free Software" and
adjust the preceding text accordingly.  This works for me, but I'm
probably too close to the idea to judge.

    Miles> Yeah, I agree -- in my mind, perhaps the _most_ important
    Miles> (important to me, that is :-) thing to say while you've got
    Miles> the user's attention, is `This is Free Software (as in
    Miles> freedom), there's a lot more of it, and a great community
    Miles> to back it up.  Wanna join?'

How about

"The following General Public License states and protects additional
rights that you possess." ==>

"The following General Public License states and protects additional
rights, the rights that constitute true software freedom, that you
possess."

OR

"The following General Public License states and protects additional
rights, the rights that make GNU Emacs truly free software, that you
possess."


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-19 13:56   ` Stephen J. Turnbull
@ 2003-09-22  2:02     ` Miles Bader
  2003-09-24  5:27       ` Stephen J. Turnbull
  2003-09-24  9:10       ` Kim F. Storm
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Miles Bader @ 2003-09-22  2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: emacs-devel

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
>     Miles> Yeah, I agree -- in my mind, perhaps the _most_ important
>     Miles> (important to me, that is :-) thing to say while you've got
>     Miles> the user's attention, is `This is Free Software (as in
>     Miles> freedom), there's a lot more of it, and a great community
>     Miles> to back it up.  Wanna join?'
> 
> How about
>
> "The following General Public License states and protects additional
> rights, the rights that constitute true software freedom, that you
> possess."
> 
> OR
> 
> "The following General Public License states and protects additional
> rights, the rights that make GNU Emacs truly free software, that you
> possess."

No, those miss the point entirely.

  `Emacs is Free Software'

I.e. establish the term `Free Software' as a category.  Names are
important.  Muttering on about `true software freedom' and `truly free
software' seems to simply try and avoid doing this (not to mention
risking flamewars from BSD fans :-).

-Miles
-- 
`Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
 But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
 they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-22  2:02     ` Miles Bader
@ 2003-09-24  5:27       ` Stephen J. Turnbull
  2003-09-25 12:05         ` Richard Stallman
  2003-09-24  9:10       ` Kim F. Storm
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2003-09-24  5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: emacs-devel

>>>>> "Miles" == Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> writes:

    Miles> No, those miss the point entirely.

    Miles>   `Emacs is Free Software'

    Miles> I.e. establish the term `Free Software' as a category.

That would be nice, but I was unable to execute it.  The problem is
that many users think they already know what "free software" means.
We do _not_ want to bring those associations up at all, unless we have
enough space to unambiguously define free software.  I don't think we
have the space in this blurb; the GPL does give a definition; it takes
seven lines (including the "GNU Emacs is Free Software" statement
itself).  Those seven lines do absolutely nothing to encourage reading
of the GPL itself (and why should they? in their context, you're
already reading the GPL).  In fact, by giving a legalistic definition,
they tend to discourage reading the license, I'm afraid.

I've tried a couple of times to incorporate the phrase "Emacs is Free
Software", but was unable to come up with anything I was happy with in
less than 5 additional lines (and they still tended to presume that
something like "free as in speech" would make sense to the reader in
context).  I already consider the blurb I wrote too long.

You're welcome to try.  The main problem is probably that I'm too
close to my own words to be an effective editor.  Do consider my
explanations of why I wrote what I did, but I'm probably too close to
those, too.

    Miles> Names are important.

Precisely.  That's why I'm so careful to avoid abusing this one.

    Miles> Muttering on about `true software freedom' and `truly free
    Miles> software' seems to simply try and avoid doing this

No, although I did have some subtleties in mind when I chose that
wording.  The word "freedom" _never_ means "the property of being free
of charge" in idiomatic English.  The phrase "software freedom"
establishes the right context in which to introduce the term "Free
Software", and the rest of the blurb shows concretely how GNU Emacs is
free.  Ie, it's a semi-deliberate "tease", and one PageDown in the GPL
will put the full definition in their faces.  "Truly free" isn't quite
as distinctive, but it does imply no hidden catches even if the reader
insists on interpreting it as a matter of "market price".

    Miles> (not to mention risking flamewars from BSD fans :-).

That's their problem.  As perhaps you know, I am in full agreement
with them on the definition of "truly free software".  However,
Emacs _is_ a GNU project, and here I use the GNU (and OSI![1])
definition.  Since, despite my private opinions, I am personally
comfortable with that, I see no reason why the GNU Emacs project
should avoid an inclusive definition.


Footnotes: 
[1]  Yes, there are technical differences, but they're small.  AFAIK,
the FSF/OSI differences have to do with the context of advocacy and
concrete application of what are really very similar definitions.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-22  2:02     ` Miles Bader
  2003-09-24  5:27       ` Stephen J. Turnbull
@ 2003-09-24  9:10       ` Kim F. Storm
  2003-09-24 10:58         ` Stephen J. Turnbull
  2003-09-25 12:06         ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Kim F. Storm @ 2003-09-24  9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: Stephen J. Turnbull, emacs-devel

Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> writes:

> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
> >
> > "The following General Public License states and protects additional
> > rights, the rights that constitute true software freedom, that you
> > possess."
> > 
> > OR
> > 
> > "The following General Public License states and protects additional
> > rights, the rights that make GNU Emacs truly free software, that you
> > possess."
> 
> No, those miss the point entirely.
> 
>   `Emacs is Free Software'

Indeed!

What about combining things like this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Emacs is Free Software, developed by the GNU project, and protected
by the Free Software Foundation.

Emacs is released under the General Public License (GPL) which states
and protects additional rights that you possess, the rights that
constitute true software freedom and ensure that GNU Emacs is, and
always will be, truly free software.

                                -o-O-o-

"Free" means that all users have the freedom to study, share, change
and improve Emacs.  In fact, you may freely use and modify Emacs for
your own purposes without knowing any of the details of the GPL.

However, once you distribute your changes to others, you should be
aware that the conditions and rights in the GPL will extend to cover
your changes as well, so before doing so, you are strongly advised to
read the license.

Also, if you write and distribute an extension to Emacs in Emacs Lisp
(the extension language used by Emacs), that extension will be covered
by the GPL too, as running such an extension requires "linking" with
Emacs.

                                -o-O-o-

Once Emacs is started, you can read the General Public License by
typing C-h C-c, or via the "Copying Conditions" item on the Help menu.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 [I appreciate software freedom] [I don't, but let me use Emacs anyway]


If a user can manage to read the first two paragraphs, they might be
tempted to read more.  


If they don't read the next two paragraphs, at
least they cannot claim that they weren't warned :-)

Of course, if they don't care to read anything at all, there's
nothing we can do anyway to educate them :-(


Is there a better wording than "protected by" in the first paragraph?

I remember there was some discussion on the subject of the fourth
paragraph (distributing proprietary Emacs Lisp packages) some time
ago.  I don't see that this is stated very clearly in the GPL, so I
think it's a good thing to mention it "up front".  The wording could
be refined of course.



> 
> I.e. establish the term `Free Software' as a category.  Names are
> important.  Muttering on about `true software freedom' and `truly free
> software' seems to simply try and avoid doing this (not to mention
> risking flamewars from BSD fans :-).
> 
> -Miles
> -- 
> `Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
>  But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
>  they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-devel mailing list
> Emacs-devel@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
> 
> 

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-24  9:10       ` Kim F. Storm
@ 2003-09-24 10:58         ` Stephen J. Turnbull
  2003-09-24 12:19           ` Kim F. Storm
  2003-09-25 12:06           ` Richard Stallman
  2003-09-25 12:06         ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2003-09-24 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: Stephen J. Turnbull, emacs-devel, Miles Bader

>>>>> "Kim" == Kim F Storm <storm@cua.dk> writes:

    Kim> What about combining things like this:

There are several good ideas here, but there are a couple of problems.

    Kim> "Free" means that all users have the freedom to study, share,
    Kim> change and improve Emacs.  In fact, you may freely use and
    Kim> modify Emacs for your own purposes without knowing any of the
    Kim> details of the GPL.

This is misleading; in order to modify Emacs you must accept the GPL.
Sure, you can accept it without knowing the details, but we don't want
to encourage that.

    Kim> However, once you distribute your changes to others, you
    Kim> should be aware that the conditions and rights in the GPL
    Kim> will extend to cover your changes as well, so before doing

In fact, it implies acceptance of the license.  That means we really
need to say that such distribution must follow the terms of the
license.  I don't see how that can happen if the user doesn't read it.

    Kim> so, you are strongly advised to read the license.

    Kim> Also, if you write and distribute an extension to Emacs in
    Kim> Emacs Lisp (the extension language used by Emacs), that
    Kim> extension will be covered by the GPL too, as running such an
    Kim> extension requires "linking" with Emacs.

This is true only if you put a strict interpretation on Emacs Lisp,
ie, those parts of Lisp that are unique to Emacs Lisp.  True, in
practice it's hard to imagine substantial Lisp applications that don't
do buffer I/O, etc, being written in Emacs Lisp, but it's possible.

I don't think it's a good idea to put debatable statements here, even
if they are pragmatically correct.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-24 10:58         ` Stephen J. Turnbull
@ 2003-09-24 12:19           ` Kim F. Storm
  2003-09-24 14:41             ` Stephen J. Turnbull
  2003-09-25 12:06           ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Kim F. Storm @ 2003-09-24 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: emacs-devel, Miles Bader

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> >>>>> "Kim" == Kim F Storm <storm@cua.dk> writes:
> 
>     Kim> What about combining things like this:
> 
> There are several good ideas here, but there are a couple of problems.
> 
>     Kim> "Free" means that all users have the freedom to study, share,
>     Kim> change and improve Emacs.  In fact, you may freely use and
>     Kim> modify Emacs for your own purposes without knowing any of the
>     Kim> details of the GPL.
> 
> This is misleading; in order to modify Emacs you must accept the GPL.
> Sure, you can accept it without knowing the details, but we don't want
> to encourage that.

Well, yes, modifying emacs does mean that you accept the license.

But there are still no practical implications of doing so until you
distribute those changes.  So if I never distribute my changes, who
really cares?

So it's kind of nit-picking in my book.  Not that I'm about the
discuss the details of the GPL, but it seems quite superfluous to
require accepting the license just to modify the software for
my own purposes if I never distribute my changes.

I bet that many people who have modified - and later contributed their
valuable code to emacs and other GNU projects - never really read the
GPL in all its fine detail (I think they understand the spirit of it
though).  It's certainly a long time since I read it in full...


> 
>     Kim> However, once you distribute your changes to others, you
>     Kim> should be aware that the conditions and rights in the GPL
>     Kim> will extend to cover your changes as well, so before doing
> 
> In fact, it implies acceptance of the license.  That means we really
> need to say that such distribution must follow the terms of the
> license.  I don't see how that can happen if the user doesn't read it.

I'd guess it happens everyday :-) 

Some person wants to "give away" his software, and picks the GPL as
the license to use; that doesn't mean that he actually read it first.
He may just think: If GPL is good enough for GNU software, then it's
certainly good enough for my software :-)


> 
>     Kim> so, you are strongly advised to read the license.
> 
>     Kim> Also, if you write and distribute an extension to Emacs in
>     Kim> Emacs Lisp (the extension language used by Emacs), that
>     Kim> extension will be covered by the GPL too, as running such an
>     Kim> extension requires "linking" with Emacs.
> 
> This is true only if you put a strict interpretation on Emacs Lisp,
> ie, those parts of Lisp that are unique to Emacs Lisp.  True, in
> practice it's hard to imagine substantial Lisp applications that don't
> do buffer I/O, etc, being written in Emacs Lisp, but it's possible.
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to put debatable statements here, 

You're right.  Let's drop it.


>                                                                  even
> if they are pragmatically correct.

It's just that this issue comes up from time to time.

Maybe it could be mentioned somewhere in the FAQ instead...


How much stuff do one have to put into .emacs to be considered as
a modification to Emacs and thus "accepting the license" ?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-24 12:19           ` Kim F. Storm
@ 2003-09-24 14:41             ` Stephen J. Turnbull
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2003-09-24 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: emacs-devel

>>>>> "Kim" == Kim F Storm <storm@cua.dk> writes:

    Kim> So if I never distribute my changes, who really cares
    Kim> [whether I accepted the GPL or not]?

Nobody, AFAIK ... but we should be careful.

    Kim> I bet that many people who have modified - and later
    Kim> contributed their valuable code to emacs and other GNU
    Kim> projects - never really read the GPL in all its fine detail
    Kim> (I think they understand the spirit of it though).

I think they understand the spirit of cooperation; I much doubt they
understand the "kiai" (unyielding martial spirit) of Copyleft.
Copyleft is a double-edged sword; it can inhibit, as well as promote,
cooperation.  For example, the incompatibility of the GPL and the FDL
is quite annoying in a language that supports docstrings.

    >> In fact, it implies acceptance of the license.  That means we
    >> really need to say that such distribution must follow the terms
    >> of the license.  I don't see how that can happen if the user
    >> doesn't read it.

    Kim> I'd guess it happens everyday :-)

    Kim> Some person wants to "give away" his software, and picks the
    Kim> GPL as the license to use; that doesn't mean that he actually
    Kim> read it first.  He may just think: If GPL is good enough for
    Kim> GNU software, then it's certainly good enough for my software
    Kim> :-)

This is not a problem.  (Unless, of course, he applies the same logic
to the FDL, thereby unwittingly creating problems for would-be forks.)

However, if the software in question is derived from Emacs, and he
doesn't understand the GPL, he's very likely to engage in the kind of
"cherrypicking" David Kastrup warned against encouraging.  Eg, failing
to distribute source or a "written offer to supply source" with
binaries to people "who don't want it".

I've done that myself (in 1991, when I really had no clue about GPL; I
believe that nobody was denied the chance to exercise GPL rights that
he would have wanted to, but technically it was a violation).  You
see, me, ca. 1991, is who I was aiming the first draft for.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-24  5:27       ` Stephen J. Turnbull
@ 2003-09-25 12:05         ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-09-25 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: emacs-devel, miles

	Miles>   `Emacs is Free Software'

	Miles> I.e. establish the term `Free Software' as a category.

    That would be nice, but I was unable to execute it.  The problem is
    that many users think they already know what "free software" means.

This is the free software movement.  The idea that we should
avoid mentioning "free software" is always unacceptable;
no matter what reasons might be offered, they are not good enough.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-24  9:10       ` Kim F. Storm
  2003-09-24 10:58         ` Stephen J. Turnbull
@ 2003-09-25 12:06         ` Richard Stallman
  2003-09-25 12:42           ` David Kastrup
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-09-25 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: stephen, emacs-devel, miles

I like this version, overall.

    What about combining things like this:

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emacs is Free Software, developed by the GNU project, and protected
    by the Free Software Foundation.

    Emacs is released under the General Public License (GPL) which states
    and protects additional rights that you possess, the rights that
    constitute true software freedom and ensure that GNU Emacs is, and
    always will be, truly free software.
    ...

But please note that the full name of the license is the GNU General
Public License, or GNU GPL for short.  There are other GPLs.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-24 10:58         ` Stephen J. Turnbull
  2003-09-24 12:19           ` Kim F. Storm
@ 2003-09-25 12:06           ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-09-25 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: miles, stephen, emacs-devel, storm

	Kim> "Free" means that all users have the freedom to study, share,
	Kim> change and improve Emacs.  In fact, you may freely use and
	Kim> modify Emacs for your own purposes without knowing any of the
	Kim> details of the GPL.

    This is misleading; in order to modify Emacs you must accept the GPL.

The GPL doesn't put any limits on private modification, so this
is a distinction without practical consequences.

	Kim> However, once you distribute your changes to others, you
	Kim> should be aware that the conditions and rights in the GPL
	Kim> will extend to cover your changes as well, so before doing

    In fact, it implies acceptance of the license.

That is true.

						    That means we really
    need to say that such distribution must follow the terms of the
    license.

It might be desirable to say that.

	      I don't see how that can happen if the user doesn't read it.

Maybe it can't, but please note that if the user has not accepted the
license, he is infringing the copyright by distributing without
authorization.  So this is not a real issue for us.

	Kim> Also, if you write and distribute an extension to Emacs in
	Kim> Emacs Lisp (the extension language used by Emacs), that
	Kim> extension will be covered by the GPL too, as running such an
	Kim> extension requires "linking" with Emacs.

    This is true only if you put a strict interpretation on Emacs Lisp,
    ie, those parts of Lisp that are unique to Emacs Lisp.  True, in
    practice it's hard to imagine substantial Lisp applications that don't
    do buffer I/O, etc, being written in Emacs Lisp, but it's possible.

That is correct.  The statement would have to be at least somewhat modified.

Also, I agree that we should put this in the FAQ instead.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-25 12:06         ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-09-25 12:42           ` David Kastrup
  2003-09-26  9:53             ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: David Kastrup @ 2003-09-25 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: miles, stephen, emacs-devel, Kim F. Storm

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I like this version, overall.
> 
>     What about combining things like this:
> 
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     Emacs is Free Software, developed by the GNU project, and protected
>     by the Free Software Foundation.
> 
>     Emacs is released under the General Public License (GPL) which states
>     and protects additional rights that you possess, the rights that
>     constitute true software freedom and ensure that GNU Emacs is, and
>     always will be, truly free software.
>     ...

I'd remove "true" and "truly" here, probably a matter of taste.  It
implies that other people may be liars when using this term.  Also,
there are some other forms of free software which are not "false free
software", but rather less protected against unfree versions.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: Lawyer's evaluation
  2003-09-25 12:42           ` David Kastrup
@ 2003-09-26  9:53             ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-09-26  9:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: stephen, emacs-devel, storm, miles

    I'd remove "true" and "truly" here, probably a matter of taste.

I agree.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-26  9:53 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-18 22:44 Lawyer's evaluation Richard Stallman
2003-09-18 23:16 ` Miles Bader
2003-09-19 13:56   ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2003-09-22  2:02     ` Miles Bader
2003-09-24  5:27       ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2003-09-25 12:05         ` Richard Stallman
2003-09-24  9:10       ` Kim F. Storm
2003-09-24 10:58         ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2003-09-24 12:19           ` Kim F. Storm
2003-09-24 14:41             ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2003-09-25 12:06           ` Richard Stallman
2003-09-25 12:06         ` Richard Stallman
2003-09-25 12:42           ` David Kastrup
2003-09-26  9:53             ` Richard Stallman

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).