What license to use for Emacs libraries?

What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Marcin Borkowski]

Hi all,

I'm a bit afraid to start another thread about licenses (I plan to write
a longer post in the previous one when I have some spare time - it will
take me quite some time, but I really want to explain at least some
reasons why I am critical of the FSF and GPL, and why I would much
prefer to avoid GPL'ing my code - but writing that in such a manner that
I don't sound like a total jerk again will require some time and
effort).

This time, I reconciled myself to the idea of releasing some of my code
under GPL (even though it seems that it is not at all obvious that
I really have to do that).  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.)

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, “If you include code under this license
| in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license
| too.” 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.

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 of
critical importance here?  More seriously: quite a lot of people express
the opinion that Emacs is really a platform, or Elisp VM, or something
similar.  Are Org-mode and M-x doctor separate programs or part of one
"program"?  What makes a program an OS, really?

(I am aware that this is exactly a kind of questions that a 6yo might
ask, and most grown-ups would just shrug, and rightly so.  But seemingly
lawyers are also interested in such questions...)

BTW, if my suspicion that you must not distribute Emacs libraries under
GPLv2 is correct, does that confirm my intuition that some (many?)
people really just don't care?

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?

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Phillip Lord]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> This time, I reconciled myself to the idea of releasing some of my code
> 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.

> 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.





>
> 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, “If you include code under this license
> | in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license
> | too.” 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.

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 Emacs.


> 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 of
> 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.

> BTW, if my suspicion that you must not distribute Emacs libraries under
> 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 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.

> 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, which
is a whole other part of the law.

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
projects have, equally deliberately and thoughtfully decided to stick
with GPLv2 because they care also.

Who is right and wrong is probably an issue which would be better off
discussed on gnu.misc.discuss, rather than gnu.emacs.help.

Phil

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Does that mean that releasing Emacs libraries under GPLv2 is illegal?

Pretty much, yes.  Since they necessarily link to Emacs's own code which
is GPLv3+, you have to use a license that's compatible with GPLv3+.

Note that GPLv2+ is one such compatible license (as opposed to GPLv2).

> I did a cursory check, and it seems that all libraries built-in in my
> Emacs are GPLv3, but some other are not:

No, they're GPLv3+ (most licenses out there implicitly say "this version
or any later version of it", whereas the GPL is more strict and you
have to explicitly say "GPLv2 or later").

> for instance, my copy of Icicles has GPLv2, and some code on EmacsWiki
> has GPLv2.

If it's stritcly "GPLv2 and no later" then it's probably an error.

> Does that mean that GitHub is a part of a sinister software-patent
> conspiracy or something?

That wouldn't be a surprise, now, would it?


        Stefan

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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.

Few people find it bad to "release in the public domain".  Instead the
problem is that you can't do it.  Your work will/should fall into the
public domain at some point in the future (currently defined as
something like 75 years after your death, tho there are strong
commercial interests behind pushing this even further into the future),
but nobody (other than time itself) can do that.

Instead, you can release under a license that mimics the effects of
something being in the public domain (e.g. the CC0 license).


        Stefan

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Phillip Lord]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> 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.
>
> Few people find it bad to "release in the public domain".  Instead the
> problem is that you can't do it.  Your work will/should fall into the
> public domain at some point in the future (currently defined as
> something like 75 years after your death, tho there are strong
> commercial interests behind pushing this even further into the future),
> but nobody (other than time itself) can do that.
>
> Instead, you can release under a license that mimics the effects of
> something being in the public domain (e.g. the CC0 license).


Indeed, it is clearer to use a CC0 license, since that is explicit.
Whether you can do it or not is a slightly different issue, of course. I
think that you are correct wrt to the US, outside of the US government.

In the UK, I believe that the term "public domain" has much meaning wrt
copyright as "fair use" or indeed the term "Jeremy Clarkson": i.e. none
at all.

Neither Canada nor Poland would I wish to hazard a guess about!

Phil

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-08-18, at 23:48, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
>
>> This time, I reconciled myself to the idea of releasing some of my code
>> 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, “If you include code under this license
>> | in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license
>> | too.” 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 Emacs.
>
>> 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 of
>> 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 under
>> 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, which
> 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!

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-08-18, at 23:53, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>> Does that mean that releasing Emacs libraries under GPLv2 is illegal?
>
> Pretty much, yes.  Since they necessarily link to Emacs's own code which
> is GPLv3+, you have to use a license that's compatible with GPLv3+.
>
> Note that GPLv2+ is one such compatible license (as opposed to GPLv2).
>

OK, thanks for the clarification.  As I said a moment ago, the
distinction between GPLvn and GPLvn+ escaped me.  That explains a lot.
(Still, all this licensing stuff feels much like craziness to me.)

>> I did a cursory check, and it seems that all libraries built-in in my
>> Emacs are GPLv3, but some other are not:
>
> No, they're GPLv3+ (most licenses out there implicitly say "this version
> or any later version of it", whereas the GPL is more strict and you
> have to explicitly say "GPLv2 or later").
>
>> for instance, my copy of Icicles has GPLv2, and some code on EmacsWiki
>> has GPLv2.
>
> If it's stritcly "GPLv2 and no later" then it's probably an error.

No, it's "GPLv2 or later" (at least with Icicles), so everything is fine
there.  Still, it is kind of funny: it is not enough to look into the
file named LICENSE to learn what license the code is under.

>> Does that mean that GitHub is a part of a sinister software-patent
>> conspiracy or something?
>
> That wouldn't be a surprise, now, would it?

Now that Phillip warned me (implicitly) about GitHub police visiting me
at 5am with handcuffs I'm afraid to say anything more on this topic. ;-)

>         Stefan

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Robert Thorpe]

phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes:
> In the UK, I believe that the term "public domain" has much meaning wrt
> copyright as "fair use" or indeed the term "Jeremy Clarkson": i.e. none
> at all.

I didn't know that.  What's the problem specifically?

BR,
Rob

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Stefan Monnier]

> OK, thanks for the clarification.  As I said a moment ago, the
> distinction between GPLvn and GPLvn+ escaped me.  That explains a lot.
> (Still, all this licensing stuff feels much like craziness to me.)

Yes, I think most people agree it's crazy.  So the sane thing to do is
to go with the standard (which in this case is GPLv3+ or GPLv2+) and
move on.

> Still, it is kind of funny: it is not enough to look into the
> file named LICENSE to learn what license the code is under.

The standard COPYING file just contains the definition of the GPLvN
license, but doesn't say which files it applies to.

Instead, each file says individually under which license it is
distributed (referring back to the COPYING file, basically).

To a large extent the COPYING file is redundant, since the definition of
the GPLvN is something you can find easily even if the COPYING file
is missing.

>>> Does that mean that GitHub is a part of a sinister software-patent
>>> conspiracy or something?
>> That wouldn't be a surprise, now, would it?
> Now that Phillip warned me (implicitly) about GitHub police visiting me
> at 5am with handcuffs I'm afraid to say anything more on this topic. ;-)

I don't think they'd bother with handcuffs,


        Stefan

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Phillip Lord]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

> phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes:
>> In the UK, I believe that the term "public domain" has much meaning wrt
>> copyright as "fair use" or indeed the term "Jeremy Clarkson": i.e. none
>> at all.
>
> I didn't know that.  What's the problem specifically?

Public domain I am not sure. The term is in wide use (see for example
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-and-the-value-of-the-public-domain).
Interestingly, though, it applies to neither The King James Bible nor
Peter Pan. How wierd is that.

"Fair use" has an equivalent ("fair dealing"). Similar to US fair use
but not the same.

Phil

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Tassilo Horn]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

>> 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?

I think one reason why the linux kernel stuck to v2 is that v3 forbids
TiVo-ization.  That term basically means that you have the 4 rights the
GPL gives you in theory but practically there is some technical
restriction (e.g., checking digital signatures) that makes it impossible
in practice to actually use a modified version of the software.

The story is: the company TiVo started selling GNU/Linux-based harddrive
TV recorders.  So in theory, you could modify the system to match your
needs but in practice you were not able to install your changes on the
recorder because those were hard-wired to only run a system with the
specific signature of the original installed version.

From a user freedom's point of view, that's a reason to prefer GPLv3
over v2 but of course different stakeholders have different priorities.

Bye,
Tassilo

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Phillip Lord]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
>> 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).

The word "politic" means "sensible in the circumstances" and is not the
same as political correctness. I wouldn't conflate the two.

There are two questions at hand, though, one technical and one ethical.
If you want to get an answer to your technical question, I wouldn't
conflate the ethical question, is all I am suggesting.

>>> Does it mean that the famous issue "Is Emacs a program, or an OS" is of
>>> 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;-).

GPL is a legal document. The law is not based around precise
specifications, but around notions of case law and reasonableness. It is hazy.



>>> 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, which
>> 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).


Yes, you asked. I did not reply because then I would have had to infer
something. No, I wasn't joking about libel. The UK law on libel is very
broad.


>> 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.)

It is good to know that, although I would generally answer without.


> Thanks for your detailed answer!

Hope it was helpful.

Phil

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Phillip Lord]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>>> Does that mean that GitHub is a part of a sinister software-patent
>>>> conspiracy or something?
>>> That wouldn't be a surprise, now, would it?
>> Now that Phillip warned me (implicitly) about GitHub police visiting me
>> at 5am with handcuffs I'm afraid to say anything more on this topic. ;-)
>
> I don't think they'd bother with handcuffs,

Be easier to just make people read the git documentation. Wouldn't be
long before they'd come willingly.

Phil

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Robert Thorpe]

Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org> writes:

...
> I think one reason why the linux kernel stuck to v2 is that v3 forbids
> TiVo-ization.

The Linux kernel uses the GPLv2.  The files mention GPLv2 and don't say
anything about optionally using later versions.

The Linux kernel developers received files from people that were GPLv2
licensed.  They don't collect copyright attribution paperwork.  Since
the GPLv3 isn't compatible with the GPLv2 that means they have to keep
everything in GPLv2.  Otherwise contributors could take legal action
against them for using their code with a different license.

That's my understanding anyway.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Tassilo Horn]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

>> I think one reason why the linux kernel stuck to v2 is that v3 forbids
>> TiVo-ization.
>
> The Linux kernel uses the GPLv2.  The files mention GPLv2 and don't
> say anything about optionally using later versions.
>
> The Linux kernel developers received files from people that were GPLv2
> licensed.  They don't collect copyright attribution paperwork.  Since
> the GPLv3 isn't compatible with the GPLv2 that means they have to keep
> everything in GPLv2.  Otherwise contributors could take legal action
> against them for using their code with a different license.

Yes, that's also an organizational issue.  But Linus has also made it
very clear that he doesn't share the FSF's position on TiVo-ization,
DRM, and patents which are covered by v3 but not by v2.

Bye,
Tassilo

Re: What license to use for Emacs libraries?

[Steinar Bang]

>>>>> Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com>:

> phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes:
>> In the UK, I believe that the term "public domain" has much meaning wrt
>> copyright as "fair use" or indeed the term "Jeremy Clarkson": i.e. none
>> at all.

> I didn't know that.  What's the problem specifically?

With Clarkson...?