From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jean Louis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 02:40:40 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20201209125516.lenqswi7fhiscbr2@E15-2016.optimum.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11583"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/2.0 (3d08634) (2020-11-07) Cc: Boruch Baum , Emacs-Devel List To: Stefan Kangas Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 10 09:34:47 2020 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 1knHPR-0002pt-H0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:34:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54032 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knHPQ-0001nV-FN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 03:34:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34816) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knHN7-0007sQ-UB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 03:32:21 -0500 Original-Received: from stw1.rcdrun.com ([217.170.207.13]:46055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knHN4-0007Ju-8t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 03:32:20 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([::ffff:41.202.241.31]) (AUTH: PLAIN securesender, TLS: TLS1.2,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by stw1.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 000000000001E00D.000000005FD1DD10.000012B5; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 01:32:16 -0700 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.170.207.13; envelope-from=bugs@gnu.support; helo=stw1.rcdrun.com X-Spam_score_int: -3 X-Spam_score: -0.4 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:260635 Archived-At: * Stefan Kangas [2020-12-10 00:48]: > Jean Louis writes: > > >> Are there any packages out there that don't use the GPL? Could you > >> point us to some examples? > > > > Just to name a few, among more of them: > > Thanks for the list. > > > anki-mode-20200703.739.el > > - no license, proprietary by default > > It seems to be under the GPL: > > https://github.com/davidshepherd7/anki-mode/blob/master/LICENCE Not that I am personally asking. Please think of conveying software and end user receiving software without license. If it is received without license software is proprietary for the end user. Software can be double licensed and be "same" inside. If there is no license distributed with the software together a receiver cannot just stumble upon some license on Internet and assume to put it together. Then the repository is not verified to be author's repository, it could be fork and licenses could be added there. For GNU ELPA is good to verify apparently dubious packages if they are licensed or not, and that they are sourced from their authors. There are many problems related to licensing specifically on Github: https://github.com/github/dmca/search?q=GPL&type= > MELPA requires a "GPL compatible license", according to > > https://github.com/melpa/melpa/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.org > > so I guess the "proprietary by default" packages you are speaking of are > simply missing the license information in the library itself? Sounds > like that should be reported as a bug against those packages. Who am I to decide? If fetch a package from MELPA git repository and there is no license in the file, it is proprietary for me. As simple as that. Ask attorneys in the FSF if my statements do not make sense but you still think there could be something. Your software you may give to person Joe without license rendering it proprietary for Joe. And you may give it to Jane under free software license. Joe cannot ask Jane to give him a license to make it free. Legal world does not work that way as he did not receive the license from the author or other person licensed to convey software and license to new receiver. > PS. I've opened a pull request against anki-mode to add the license > header. Good if that package is destined for the non GNU ELPA, but if not destined, then doing reports for licenses should be made by priorities for those packages that developers want to have in non GNU ELPA. Jean