From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Elisp licensing Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:58:40 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87mshwphv5.fsf@librehacker.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37342"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Christopher Howard Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 21 05:59:36 2024 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 1tDzHz-0009aL-VO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 05:59:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tDzH8-0007ND-T7; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:58:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tDzH7-0007LD-HP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:58:41 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tDzH7-0006Gn-6f; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:58:41 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: mime-version; bh=O/L0N8FQMCBOF3OIWbU7pEov3YEZYtuoMAZJFY2BLFo=; b=AJvEFvI5aEGn XhSDxFngztWg0ivUA6ND/dfIh/HOVsprPmVOHBcPaYSJLPAswt7JHld+0fv+GH/5WjlPp8kv8jCdr Jlv49C4QAEnkweKECUhLkhbd4qzb1xL+3IcgLrARD34GC3uW+9I85zNjmQjbjK+56yVV2JztDoFZ9 7SphAtDEMAAO2LYLDtx93zoEw5WcY74GyJsHGCY0VNNu7IlQGAmD9fPqke+FLtaWXBbXownuaNvvm T1gnmA1lfYPCKEro6Uo8cQF8Fc3FD8I0Ak/Sk05OrJD/gCXlOi/grr30KMGQb3o8/h70V45XsO9vQ 6pHbIT7DqXDA6hpAzWOkQw==; Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tDzH6-0004H8-34; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:58:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87mshwphv5.fsf@librehacker.com> (message from Christopher Howard on Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:33:02 -0900) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:325536 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 was wondering if somebody could clarify, from a legal perspective, > and from the perspective of the Gnu project, what is acceptable > licensing for Elisp code? Those two perspectives make two different questions -- which are you asking? In my personal observations, finding Elisp > in the wild, it seems like most people are labeling their Elisp as > GPLv3+, That is what we recommend. not counting the code that doesn't have any license attached > at all. A nontrivial file with no license is nonfree. That is the default under copyright law. When you see an instance of that, please point this out to the auhor and ask per to add a GPLv3+ license header. > But recently I came across an Elisp library marked LGPLv3+, LGPLv3+ is basically the same as GPLv3+ ecept that it gives some additional perissions. (Please read it for yourself so you will see: https://gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt.) So it is no problem. > and also another project that was under an ISC license. That is a weak, permissive license, compatible with everything. We do not recommend it but its use is not a problem. > My understand was that nearly all Elisp programs heavily utilize the > Gnu Emacs API and libraries, and so they should be also licensed under > GPLv3+. Legally they need to be under licenses compatible with GPLv3+, if they are meant for use in combination with GNU Emacs. Morally, it is always good to use GPLv3+, and there is rarely a good reason to use anything else. I suggest you read https://gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html to learn about license compatibility issues. > Maybe with exceptions for programs written for Guile Elisp That is rather vague, so I won't say it is absurd, but why would it ever be better to use a weaker license for Emacs Lisp code? Copyleft supports freedom, so in general it is better to copyleft a program than not to. or > one of the non-Gnu Emacs clones that are being developed, like Gypsum > or Rune. What are those? Why would they make it better not to uee copyleft? -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)