Re: Packages, release notes, etc

[<tomas@tuxteam.de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:11:03PM +0200, Michael Welle wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

> > With respect to license, I think it is not even possible for an emacs
> > package to have a license different than GPL version 3 or later.  Each
> > package is a combined work of emacs + X so the emacs license extends to
> > the package.  That's probably the reason why there's no special License
> > field in the standard headers.
> Hm, so it isn't possible to distribute a package that is in the public
> domain or maybe one that is Artistic ver. 2.0 licensed via ELPA or one of
> the other repositories? I doubt that.

This looks strange to me too. Tassilo: are you sure you didn't mean
"...to have a license incompatible than GPLV3 [or later]"?

Of course, the "or later" is the hard part here. How do we know that
Apache V2 is compatible with yet-to-know GPLV4?

regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlXxXBcACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYQAwCfUA848q3U8f94cRkbTVmdLRUB
T4gAn3tikeeglwYdNBvfsUjmwfhWkKAy
=6pnd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----