From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: tomas@tuxteam.de Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Drop the Copyright Assignment requirement for Emacs Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 12:34:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20200519103446.GJ7874@tuxteam.de> References: <3c558381-f584-a2e5-972e-007221347f16@yandex.ru> <20200519075551.GE7874@tuxteam.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Do4IU1xF/9sod/r6" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="85938"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Emacs developers To: Philippe Vaucher Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue May 19 12:35:37 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jazaz-000MGN-FJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 19 May 2020 12:35:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57504 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jazay-0004L8-EN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 19 May 2020 06:35:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39138) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jazaG-0003mf-C2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2020 06:34:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:33906) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jazaE-0003Wk-Lf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2020 06:34:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=bFeLmD06YGiosjTpTUbqv4XgYks1owxy/xpDKLSqpks=; b=DtVx8jcRTyKzu8duskKmMtJYsFAy97/rSXhjyD3FE4/kMuDn3Qhe8MuzhGWXA0+9z4QRpNR4654vCYfqrD4/DldXnkyPwX9DrmXWd0bXj7ZYe2fGINe6+ftdOPyBXi+ap4EkVm7nZgOXjkYIbEnuJCb0nksDwvWebiJQO+AZ+ySey2xq65iD/mm96s1nD8zrcWkMoOocfE+1V/waaccJygSKUgWBjtW1RZfLWr6fswlt5kpWk6BKZl4sRmqu0/tIQE4USn0vHUWF1rzwe2gK67KpI9U1x+4f2vtUViWJK0YEwkuSiieu/i/lOBvtGamkm3ZvrZ34GKwwtYTmp4p9Ug==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jazaB-0004X8-0Q; Tue, 19 May 2020 12:34:47 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.199.139.25; envelope-from=tomas@tuxteam.de; helo=mail.tuxteam.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/19 06:34:47 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:250901 Archived-At: --Do4IU1xF/9sod/r6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:11:58PM +0200, Philippe Vaucher wrote: [...] > Okay, I understand FSF wants the safe option. Once there is > jurisprudence that the digital signatures are valid in court, the FSF > will probably adapt. >=20 > So, basically until then it's useless to even pursue these smooth options. >=20 > Thanks for making it clear this is a dealbreaker. Well -- I didn't reach that conclusion yet. As you noted, the environment moves, and it is a Good Thing to get some discussion moving. Ideally the outcome is some set of requirements the FSF has on the signature process, and then a set of technical measures can be adapted to that. I can understand your position (this pushing of physical paper around does feel antiquated), so raising the point is valid. But to change it, it's necessary to understand why it's there. Or something. Cheers -- t --Do4IU1xF/9sod/r6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAl7DtkYACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbIMQCfUZb4NOFmtBfXFsdFMezYMPCa 1oUAn2nsto1L5xIaeq0Lk5vJ1kdS6wl7 =TfeC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Do4IU1xF/9sod/r6--