Re: Fwd: How do I go about debugging my Elisp code?

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com> [2022-01-14 20:42]:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 20:48, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
> 
> > * Davin Pearson <davin.pearson@gmail.com> [2022-01-13 04:27]:
> > > http://davinpearson.nz/binaries/dmp-padderise2.el
> >
> > After the first review of that file, I can see "Copyright" related to
> > your name. However, that makes the software proprietary. Because it
> > does change the Emacs, such software is incompatible with the Emacs
> > License. If it would be internal only, that would be fine. But as soon
> > as you publish it, you would need to comply to the license so that
> > your software becomes compatible legally.

While your comment sounds funny to me, I wish to answer it in more
serious manner as not to confuse the public that is reading it.

> Hey, that’s unfair.
> 
> * A guy asks the list for help in debugging their personal, private
> use piece of code.

By doing so the program was published.

> * You come and suggest that they publish it as a package.

That is right in itself, we and you know, it is good way of making
programs.

> * They do, and then you start insisting that package has to be
> compatible with the Emacs license.

I did not see any conformant package.

Licensing issue is separate. And yes, code should be licensed
properly. If we are discussing the code we are resharing it.

> Basically you tricked the OP into publishing their code and are
> bullying them into releasing that code under a Free license.

There is no "tricked" at hand, that is your exaggerated personal
impression which I cannot share neither agree to it.

There is no "bullying" involved at all. Your exaggeration I do not
find proper.

> As published, the code does not work. You cannot use it, therefore you
> are not its User as defined by GPL. As you are not its user, you do
> not have the rights that the GPL grants to users. Problem solved.

Code does not need to work to be authored and thus automatically or
implicitly licensed. Code may be even written in yet unknown
programming language. It is not relevant if code is functional or not
functional.

There are Emacs packages not any more functional with today's version,
they are nevertheless copyrighted and copyright implies some terms. 

Terms must be clear with any code published for Emacs as it is under
the GNU GPL license. 

It is up to writers and authors to understand the license, and that is
important for future of free software. 

Sadly, free software licenses were read and easier understood much
widely before 20 years than it is now. I will keep nudging.


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/