Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Andrew M. Scott]

1. The first line of etc/NEWS has a spurious date in it:

GNU Emacs NEWS -- history of user-visible changes.  2003-05-21
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^
2. Is there a reason that

    etc/NEWS,MH-E-NEWS,GNUS-NEWS,DEBUG,DISTRIB,GNU,

    have copyright date lines, but 

   etc/MORE.STUFF,PROBLEMS,TODO,CENSORSHIP,MACHINES,grep.txt,compilation.txt,
   MAILINGLISTS,ETAGS.EBNF,.arch-inventory,HELLO,SERVICE,Xkeymap.txt,ctags.1,
   emacs.csh,ledit.l,ms-7bkermit,ses-example.ses,ulimit.hack,MOTIVATION,LPF,
   TERMS,WHY-FREE,README,ORDERS,FTP

   do not? 

   There are also files with older than 2006 copyrights (see #3-11).
   If there is a good reason for these, maybe there should be some way
   that a batch copyright-update process could DTRT if run on the
   whole directory.

3. Is there a reason the -*-outline-*- in the first line of etc/TODO
   is so far to the right side? It may because it was copied from
   etc/ERC.

4. The Copyright in etc/INTERVIEW is only 1986

5. The Copyright in etc/COPYING is 1981,1991

6. etc/enriched.doc has 1995, 1997 dates but not a real copyright line

7. ONEWS and ONEWS.1-4 have older copyright dates.

8. OTHER.EMACSES has a 1985 copyright date

9. ledit.l - There are no descriptive comments
   at the top. I do see it mentioned in LEDIT.

10. ms-kermit has May 13, 1990 date but no copyright.

11. LINUX-GNU has a 1996, 2002 copyright

12. It's hard to believe spook.lines hasn't been updated since 1999.

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Andreas Schwab]

"Andrew M. Scott" <amscott1@sedona.ch.intel.com> writes:

> 12. It's hard to believe spook.lines hasn't been updated since 1999.

But it's true.

----------------------------
revision 1.6
date: 1999-10-25 02:37:12 +0200;  author: friedman;  state: Exp;  lines: +292 -5
Add more phrases.
----------------------------

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Richard Stallman]

    3. Is there a reason the -*-outline-*- in the first line of etc/TODO
       is so far to the right side?

Why worry about it.

				    It may because it was copied from
       etc/ERC.

That seems rather unlikely.

    4. The Copyright in etc/INTERVIEW is only 1986

That isn't part of Emacs, so we do not change its copyright date.

    5. The Copyright in etc/COPYING is 1981,1991

That definitely should not be changed.

    7. ONEWS and ONEWS.1-4 have older copyright dates.

    8. OTHER.EMACSES has a 1985 copyright date

    11. LINUX-GNU has a 1996, 2002 copyright

Likewise.

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Richard Stallman]

    12. It's hard to believe spook.lines hasn't been updated since 1999.

Would someone like to update it?
I am sure a number of juicy updates could occur to people.

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     12. It's hard to believe spook.lines hasn't been updated since 1999.
>
> Would someone like to update it?
> I am sure a number of juicy updates could occur to people.

I added some ... I don't know what's allowed there, so take a look.

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

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Richard Stallman]

There are a lot of old obsolete entries in spook.lines.  And a lot of
pointless or silly ones.  I don't think mention of Roswell is going to
make the NSA start listening, nor Reno, nor president, nor Panama.

Would someone like to delete the useless entries?

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Richard Stallman]

    9. ledit.l - There are no descriptive comments
       at the top. I do see it mentioned in LEDIT.

This may be a real issue.  I will talk with a lawyer.

    10. ms-kermit has May 13, 1990 date but no copyright.

Eli, is this still of any use?  Or should we just delete it?
I think it is insignificant for copyright.

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:08:54 -0400
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
>     10. ms-kermit has May 13, 1990 date but no copyright.
> 
> Eli, is this still of any use?

I don't know, although I tend to think it's not used nowadays.

I myself never used Kermit with Emacs, even before we had
proliferation of Internet.

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Kim F. Storm]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
>> Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:08:54 -0400
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>>     10. ms-kermit has May 13, 1990 date but no copyright.
>> 
>> Eli, is this still of any use?
>
> I don't know, although I tend to think it's not used nowadays.

C-kermit is still actively developed, but it would be good if
someone would test if ms-kermit and ms-7bkermit still works
with a "modern" kermit.


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

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Richard Stallman]

    C-kermit is still actively developed, but it would be good if
    someone would test if ms-kermit and ms-7bkermit still works
    with a "modern" kermit.

The question is whether people would really miss it if we delete it.

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Stefan Monnier]

>     C-kermit is still actively developed, but it would be good if
>     someone would test if ms-kermit and ms-7bkermit still works
>     with a "modern" kermit.

> The question is whether people would really miss it if we delete it.

And what about moving lisp/kermit.el to lisp/obsolete/kermit.el ?


        Stefan

Re: Feedback on etc/* documents, mostly copyrights

[Richard Stallman]

    > The question is whether people would really miss it if we delete it.

    And what about moving lisp/kermit.el to lisp/obsolete/kermit.el ?

There is no copyright issue with kermit.el as far as I know.