From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:16:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87shi4z7ps.fsf@bernoul.li> <87zic9zuof.fsf@bernoul.li> <877ezaajme.fsf@bernoul.li> <87shhw2xuv.fsf@bernoul.li> <87a844cmgx.fsf@ernst> <874ltwbzpl.fsf@bernoul.li> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1501262285 22316 195.159.176.226 (28 Jul 2017 17:18:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:18:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mats.lidell@cag.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jonas Bernoulli Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 28 19:18:01 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1db8tj-0005TA-It for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 19:17:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49305 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1db8tp-0000dY-Do for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:18:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41727) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1db8so-0000bY-QS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:17:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1db8sn-0001Ed-Ll for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:17:02 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:60153) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1db8sh-00017U-R5; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:16:55 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1db8sh-0006QD-Ev; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:16:55 -0400 In-reply-to: <874ltwbzpl.fsf@bernoul.li> (message from Jonas Bernoulli on Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:52:38 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:217106 Archived-At: [[[ 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 wrote > Under the malign influence of GitHub, developers often don't bother to > put on a license. You responded > Github actively encourages users to specify the license. which appears to disagree. However,there is no conflict between what you report and what I wrote. They appear to conflict, but they really don't conflict. You report what GitHub says NOW. That is a change Github made in response to the failing grade we gave GitHub two years ago in https://gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html. The change was an improvement, but it doesn't erase the past. GitHub operated for many years presenting "no license" as a fine alternative. Thus, I stand by what I wrote. During those years, GitHub spread a malign influence against putting on a license. The effects continue to spread among the users. Should we forgive GitHub for the past harm? That depends on how hard GitHub works now to correct the past harm. I don't remember the specifics of what GitHub says now -- I saw it over a year ago. ISTR it was not a strong and firm policy, and I was disappointed. It was less bad, but not very good. You described it with the word "encourages", which also suggests it is not strong and firm. A weak policy will not suffice, in practice, to undo the past harm. A strong and firm policy would mean telling all the users: "Warning: if a source file has no license, you are not authorized to copy it or redistribute it, let alone change it." And then saying, "Upload of software source files not carrying a clear license is not permitted -- don't do it here!" If GitHub did that, the FSF would welcome its efforts to undo the past harm, and would no longer blame present-day GitHub for it. (Our other criticisms of GitHub, on other issues, would remain active.) -- 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.