From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marcin Borkowski Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries? Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:16:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87614cmbkt.fsf@mbork.pl> References: <877fosmhmv.fsf@mbork.pl> <87fv3gz2s1.fsf@russet.org.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1439939859 29355 80.91.229.3 (18 Aug 2015 23:17:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 23:17:39 +0000 (UTC) To: Help Gnu Emacs mailing list Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 19 01:17:24 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRq87-0000Fe-BS for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:17:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59944 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRq86-0006sb-M3 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:17:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41180) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRq7t-0006qO-7x for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:17:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRq7q-0004QO-0r for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:17:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([2a01:5e00:2:52::8]:39540) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRq7p-0004Pp-L3 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:17:01 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112DC572004 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:17:00 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.mojserwer.eu Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mojserwer.eu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1oX2AhA8pWjA for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:16:54 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (103-115.echostar.pl [213.156.103.115]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6513653201C for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:16:54 +0200 (CEST) In-reply-to: <87fv3gz2s1.fsf@russet.org.uk> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a01:5e00:2:52::8 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:106693 Archived-At: On 2015-08-18, at 23:48, Phillip Lord wrot= e: > Marcin Borkowski writes: > >> This time, I reconciled myself to the idea of releasing some of my cod= e >> under GPL (even though it seems that it is not at all obvious that >> I really have to do that). > > You do not have to do anything that you do know what to do. > > There are other options, I believe, including release under public > domain which I you could do, although others can argue that this is a > bad thing to do. Yes, we have discussed that. Not exactly that placing my code in PD is a "bad" thing, more (as stated in later posts) a "technically impossible" thing (at least in Poland). >> The question now is: do I /have/ to use GPLv3? (Not that it's a >> problem for me - GPLv2 and GPLv3 are most probably more or less >> equally `evil' - but I'm just curious.) > > In general, if you are asking for advice on what you can and cannot do, > and do not want to get into a big license battle (god knows, there have > been enough of this), it's probably politic to avoid use of terms such > as "evil" for any licence. Well, I do not want to be politic;-). I not only don't care about the so-called "political correctness", I deliberately violate it if I can. I probably should have said "wrong" instead of evil, though, since I meant the rather technical sense "violating moral principles" (well, not exactly violating, but close to - I lack a good English word for what I have in mind). >> This page: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html states: >> >> ,---- >> | When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is >> | no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in >> | a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft >> | licenses: each of them says, =E2=80=9CIf you include code under this= license >> | in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license >> | too.=E2=80=9D There is no way to make them compatible. >> `---- >> >> Does that mean that releasing Emacs libraries under GPLv2 is illegal? >> I did a cursory check, and it seems that all libraries built-in in my >> Emacs are GPLv3, but some other are not: for instance, my copy of >> Icicles has GPLv2, and some code on EmacsWiki has GPLv2. > > > Partly, this depends on the details. Many GPLv2 libraries are actually > "GPLv2 or later". It is legal to release. v2 or later code can be > combined with v3 code. The combination would be v3. Ah, so there are indeed two licenses: GPLv2 and GPLv2+, and similar with 3. As if it wasn't confusing enough. (Since apparently the file called LICENSE is identical for GPLvn and GPLvn+.) > It is also legal to release libraries for Emacs under v2, since many > versions of Emacs were released under v2. However, code under v2 could > not be combined (i.e. used, modified and released) under a current Emac= s. > >> OTOH, the next paragraph has this: >> >> ,---- >> | There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered >> | programs side by side in an operating system. >> `---- >> >> Does it mean that the famous issue "Is Emacs a program, or an OS" is o= f >> critical importance here? > > No. While your legal system may take a different opinion on this, the > FSF has a relatively explicit meaning to this statement. You can run > Emacs on the same OS as propietary software, yet alone GPLv2 software. > If two libraries communicate only through a file system, or a pipe, or > do not communicate at all, then there is no combined work, just > "aggregation". If there is a direct function call in the same VM (lisp > or otherwise), there is a combined work. Thanks for the clarification, though I would still maintain that it seems a bit hazy. I'm not in the mood to start another battle on such a minor issue, happily;-). >> BTW, if my suspicion that you must not distribute Emacs libraries unde= r >> GPLv2 is correct, does that confirm my intuition that some (many?) >> people really just don't care? > > A piece of Emacs-Lisp code on it's own can be released under many > different licenses. Whether you can practically use that code is a > different question. I see. Yet another fine distinction that is too nitpicky even for my mathematical mind. > I would, indeed, be surprised though if there is nowhere in the entire > Emacs ecosystem you did not find some GPLv2/GPLv3 combined code which > technically cannot be actually run anywhere. Do people not care? Some > do, some don't. I'd be surprised if there were GPLv2 code in core Emacs= , > for instance. Me too, especially that I did a quick grep;-). And taking into account that Emacs devs seem to care (at least in general), I didn't expect anything else. >> Also, the suggested licenses for GitHub repos seem to be Apache 2.0, >> MIT and GPLv2. GPLv3 is also there, but further down the list and not >> in bold, so it's well possible that many people who don't really care >> much about all this stuff (see above) just select GPLv2 and forget >> about the thing. Does that mean that GitHub is a part of a sinister >> software-patent conspiracy or something? > > Github's motivations are, of course, not something that any sensible > person would wish to infer on a public mailing list without clear > evidence, at least not if they do not with to be committing libel, whic= h > is a whole other part of the law. I didn't "infer" anything. I just asked, jokingly. You mentioned libel (thanks for teaching me yet another English word!), also jokingly (or so I hope). > As a matter of public record, though, it is clear that many people do > care. The changes between GPLv2 and v3 where put in place quite > deliberately and thoughtfully by the FSF because they care. Some That is obvious. > projects have, equally deliberately and thoughtfully decided to stick > with GPLv2 because they care also. And that is surprising (at least for me). Are there any reasons to prefer GPLv2 ober GPLv3? > Who is right and wrong is probably an issue which would be better off > discussed on gnu.misc.discuss, rather than gnu.emacs.help. Well, my main question was much more technical, and I do not want to discuss moral issues at the moment. (As I hinted, I want to make my standpoint clear, I do expect that some (many?) people will disagree, but I want to explain that I have /reasons/ to avoid GPL.) > Phil Thanks for your detailed answer! --=20 Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University