Relicensing the Emacs repository

Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Richard Stallman]

I am looking for volunteers to relicense branches
of Emacs to GPL version 3 or later.  Would people please
volunteer to do at least one branch?

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Reiner Steib]

On Thu, Jul 05 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Would people please volunteer to do at least one branch?

I guess it would be best to do it on the Emacs 22 branch from where
Miles will sync it to the trunk and other branches.  (IIRC, Miles is
on holidays at the moment.)

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Richard Stallman]

    I guess it would be best to do it on the Emacs 22 branch from where
    Miles will sync it to the trunk and other branches.  (IIRC, Miles is
    on holidays at the moment.)

I don't know whether that will really take care of all,
but we certainly want to do it for Emacs 22.

Would you like to do it?

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Reiner Steib]

On Sun, Jul 08 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     I guess it would be best to do it on the Emacs 22 branch from where
>     Miles will sync it to the trunk and other branches.  (IIRC, Miles is
>     on holidays at the moment.)
>
> I don't know whether that will really take care of all,
> but we certainly want to do it for Emacs 22.
>
> Would you like to do it?

No.  (Sorry I don't have sufficient time ATM.)

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> I am looking for volunteers to relicense branches of Emacs to GPL
> version 3 or later. Would people please volunteer to do at least one
> branch?

I believe I have done the release branch (it was great fun).

Comments and questions:

1. Some files that are in CVS are not really part of Emacs. All the
   following are copyright FSF and GPL >= v2. I left them alone:

These look like parts of glibc, mainly:
rc/getloadavg.c
src/gmalloc.c
src/md5.c  ? "part of emacs?"
src/md5.h
src/mktime.c
src/regex.c ? part of emacs?
src/regex.h
src/strftime.c
src/termcap.c  ? part of emacs?
src/tparam.c   ? part of emacs?
oldXMenu/insque.c

config.guess
config.sub
lispintro/missing
man/texinfo.tex


2. I updated the files that are joint copyright FSF and AIST, or
   copyright AIST alone (eg lisp/composite.el). These are all marked
   as part of Emacs. This includes files in leim, leim/quail, lisp,
   lisp/language, lisp/international, src.


3. I also updated the oldxmenu files that have FSF copyright.


4. I also updated msdos/is_exec.c and sigaction.c, since DJ Delorie
   said we could do as we wished.


5. lwlib/ - I left alone.
   Files originally in Lucid Widget Library remain under GPL v1 or
   later, or v2 or later.


6. These contain non-standard licenses compared to the other refcards:
   These two seem fine:
   etc/gnus-refcard.tex
   etc/ru-refcard.tex

   These two seem confusing to me:
   etc/vipcard.tex
   etc/viperCard.tex
   They contain simple licenses which seem fine, but also refer to the
   "GNU Emacs GPL". I suggest just changing these two to the standard
   Emacs license text.


7. There are some files where the FSF holds no copyright. I left these
   alone:

leim/MISC-DIC/CTLau-b5.html  >= v2
leim/MISC-DIC/CTLau.html     >= v2
  (above included in lisp/international/titdic-cnv.el)
leim/MISC-DIC/pinyin.map     >= v1
leim/MISC-DIC/ziranma.cin    >= v1
leim/SKK-DIC/SKK-JISYO.L     >= v2
leim/SKK-DIC/README          >= v2
leim/ja-dic/ja-dic.el        >= v2


8. Some non-Emacs icons remain under GPLv2 (no "or later"). See:
etc/images/gnus/README
etc/images/mail/README
etc/images/README
nt/icons/README

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[David Kastrup]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> I am looking for volunteers to relicense branches of Emacs to GPL
>> version 3 or later. Would people please volunteer to do at least one
>> branch?
>
> I believe I have done the release branch (it was great fun).
>
> Comments and questions:
>
> 1. Some files that are in CVS are not really part of Emacs. All the
>    following are copyright FSF and GPL >= v2. I left them alone:

If they are copyright FSF, they can be changed to GPL >= v3 even we
distribute them under GPL >= v2 (or LGPL or anything else) elsewhere.

> 2. I updated the files that are joint copyright FSF and AIST, or
>    copyright AIST alone (eg lisp/composite.el). These are all marked
>    as part of Emacs. This includes files in leim, leim/quail, lisp,
>    lisp/language, lisp/international, src.

If we have a copyright disclaimer for them on file, this presumably
allows us to release under any GPL we like, even though we are not the
one who can (or will) sue for breach of license.

> 5. lwlib/ - I left alone.
>    Files originally in Lucid Widget Library remain under GPL v1 or
>    later, or v2 or later.

If we have permission to license under GPL v1 or later, we should be
able to change the licensing of the copy we distribute to GPL v3 or
later even if we are not the copyright holder.  What this means when
the original copyright holder is not going to bother, is a different
question.  If we want to avoid the situation of distributing under a
license for which no-one will bother pressing compliance, we might
consider not touching anything, but I don't think that this should be
problematic.


-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Glenn Morris]

PS 9. I think it would be tidier if man/calc.texi and man/emacs.texi
used "include gpl.texi" (the same as lispref does), rather than
pasting the GPL text into the files.

PPS 10. Miles: I seem to recall in the past that you have described
the merging of changes between branches as only semi-automated. With
this many files involved, would you prefer me to do the trunk by hand?

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Richard Stallman]

    oldXMenu/insque.c

We wrote that specifically for Emacs, so definitely relicense that.

    src/regex.c ? part of emacs?
    src/regex.h

That forked version is only in Emacs, so definitely relicense that.

    These look like parts of glibc, mainly:
    rc/getloadavg.c
    src/gmalloc.c
    src/md5.c  ? "part of emacs?"
    src/md5.h
    src/mktime.c
    src/strftime.c
    src/termcap.c  ? part of emacs?
    src/tparam.c   ? part of emacs?

    config.guess
    config.sub

Those are probably Gnulib files.  For now, you may as
well leave them alone.  We may copy them from Gnulib again.

    > 2. I updated the files that are joint copyright FSF and AIST, or
    >    copyright AIST alone (eg lisp/composite.el). These are all marked
    >    as part of Emacs. This includes files in leim, leim/quail, lisp,
    >    lisp/language, lisp/international, src.

That was the right thing to do.  Anyone can update them to GPLv3+.

    > 5. lwlib/ - I left alone.
    >    Files originally in Lucid Widget Library remain under GPL v1 or
    >    later, or v2 or later.

We may as well leave this alone, since we are never going to change it
much.

       These two seem confusing to me:
       etc/vipcard.tex
       etc/viperCard.tex
       They contain simple licenses which seem fine, but also refer to the
       "GNU Emacs GPL". I suggest just changing these two to the standard
       Emacs license text.

Would you like to do that?

    8. Some non-Emacs icons remain under GPLv2 (no "or later"). See:
    etc/images/gnus/README
    etc/images/mail/README
    etc/images/README
    nt/icons/README

Earlier you said that the license info was not clear for some of the
icons.  Yesterday I sent you the response from GNOME developers.
What do these files say in their text properties?

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Miles Bader]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
> PPS 10. Miles: I seem to recall in the past that you have described
> the merging of changes between branches as only semi-automated. With
> this many files involved, would you prefer me to do the trunk by hand?

It's probably not necessary:  The main thing which causes problems is the
number of conflicts (not the number of files).  Since these changes mainly
involve copyright headers (and a fairly small part at that -- some random
diffs I did showed only "2" -> "3"!), I don't expect there too many conflicts.

Thanks,

-Miles

-- 
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra.  Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath.  At night the ice weasels come.  --Nietzsche

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Glenn Morris]

Miles Bader wrote:

> The main thing which causes problems is the number of conflicts (not
> the number of files). Since these changes mainly involve copyright
> headers (and a fairly small part at that -- some random diffs I did
> showed only "2" -> "3"!),

Yes, that's all that is involved for the vast majority of files (I
hope, otherwise I got it wrong.. :) ). There were a very small number
where I standardized the headers (I tried to note these in the cvs
log). And all the COPYING files got totally replaced of course, and
the licenses in some manuals got updated, and no doubt a few other
tweaks here and there.

> I don't expect there too many conflicts.

Great.

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     oldXMenu/insque.c
>
> We wrote that specifically for Emacs, so definitely relicense that.

done

>     src/regex.c ? part of emacs?
>     src/regex.h
>
> That forked version is only in Emacs, so definitely relicense that.

done

>        These two seem confusing to me:
>        etc/vipcard.tex
>        etc/viperCard.tex
>        They contain simple licenses which seem fine, but also refer to the
>        "GNU Emacs GPL". I suggest just changing these two to the standard
>        Emacs license text.
>
> Would you like to do that?

done

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Richard Stallman]

    PS 9. I think it would be tidier if man/calc.texi and man/emacs.texi
    used "include gpl.texi" (the same as lispref does), rather than
    pasting the GPL text into the files.

I agree.  Would someone please make that change and ack?

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Richard Stallman]

Thank you very much.

It would be useful for various people to keep an eye out, check the
less important directories, etc., for any files that have been missed.
It is very hard to do a job like this perfectly.

Re: Relicensing the Emacs repository

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     PS 9. I think it would be tidier if man/calc.texi and man/emacs.texi
>     used "include gpl.texi" (the same as lispref does), rather than
>     pasting the GPL text into the files.
>
> I agree.  Would someone please make that change and ack?

ack