Re: [ELPA-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/elpa r325: Fix the copyright section to point out that it's not part of Emacs.

Re: [ELPA-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/elpa r325: Fix the copyright section to point out that it's not part of Emacs.

[Stefan Monnier]

> -;; This file is part of GNU Emacs.
> +;; This file is not part of GNU Emacs.

Actually, it's in an in-between state: GNU ELPA packages are covered by
copyright assignments for Emacs, and it's in the "emacs" Bzr repository,
it's just in a separate branch that's distributed separately.


        Stefan

Re: [ELPA-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/elpa r325: Fix the copyright section to point out that it's not part of Emacs.

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> -;; This file is part of GNU Emacs.
>> +;; This file is not part of GNU Emacs.
>
> Actually, it's in an in-between state: GNU ELPA packages are covered by
> copyright assignments for Emacs, and it's in the "emacs" Bzr repository,
> it's just in a separate branch that's distributed separately.

Oh, ok.  I got an email from somebody that wondered whether it was
correct to say "part of Emacs" for stuff that, er, isn't distributed
with Emacs, so I changed it.  I'll revert the change.


-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no  *  Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: [ELPA-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/elpa r325: Fix the copyright section to point out that it's not part of Emacs.

[Stefan Monnier]

> Oh, ok.  I got an email from somebody that wondered whether it was
> correct to say "part of Emacs" for stuff that, er, isn't distributed
> with Emacs, so I changed it.  I'll revert the change.

You can also circumvent the whole issue and not say that it's part nor
say that it's not part.


        Stefan

Re: [ELPA-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/elpa r325: Fix the copyright section to point out that it's not part of Emacs.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stefan Monnier writes:
 > > Oh, ok.  I got an email from somebody that wondered whether it was
 > > correct to say "part of Emacs" for stuff that, er, isn't distributed
 > > with Emacs, so I changed it.  I'll revert the change.
 > 
 > You can also circumvent the whole issue and not say that it's part nor
 > say that it's not part.

That's a terrible idea.  It's bad enough if it's not part of Emacs;
but at least people know that they have to do more paperwork.  If it
*is* part of Emacs, then people who have papers on file for Emacs can
contribute freely.  Why obfuscate that?

You also might want to check with the lawyers to see if that would
adversely affect the FSF's ability to defend its position that
copyleft extends across linkage even if the linked files aren't
distributed with the derived code (ie, because the contention is that
they still constitute a single work).  Probably not, but it's
unpredictable what a real lawyer will say....

IANAL-ly y'rs,

Re: [ELPA-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/elpa r325: Fix the copyright section to point out that it's not part of Emacs.

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > Oh, ok.  I got an email from somebody that wondered whether it was
>> > correct to say "part of Emacs" for stuff that, er, isn't distributed
>> > with Emacs, so I changed it.  I'll revert the change.
>> You can also circumvent the whole issue and not say that it's part nor
>> say that it's not part.
> That's a terrible idea.  It's bad enough if it's not part of Emacs;
> but at least people know that they have to do more paperwork.  If it
> *is* part of Emacs, then people who have papers on file for Emacs can
> contribute freely.  Why obfuscate that?

If/when they contribute, they'll soon enough discover whether they need
to sign paperwork, so it's not a big deal.  But I guess you're right
that it's better to say "part of Emacs" from this point of view.


        Stefan