From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: as for Calc and the math library Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:43:23 +0300 Message-ID: <864j7m8ewk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <864j7qhup6.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5hi0yts.fsf@valhala.localdomain> <86y152ge0b.fsf@gnu.org> <875xs60wmc.fsf@valhala.localdomain> <86wmklho4m.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37000"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Christopher Dimech Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 15 08:44:12 2024 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 1seUDT-0009U2-V2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 08:44:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1seUCu-0001jM-F1; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 02:43:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1seUCr-0001ig-36 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 02:43:33 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1seUCq-0005o6-Mq; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 02:43:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=oKbB1dfnkWnavPQA0WsVJlLt0jKKgW1EgEAyYv+vnkw=; b=aaMU6hrTO22afocxtu+W KDB/1F5ve8qwqQXTVo9tXBw4Lq9SnLKU5bffqk5UxXouzP2iI7a8i67r5J4sHuM690TJRHPxyjNII 7XZ6IWGvouPxOTdthKeDNj29Hw++f5Jri28npqnSorIwt4BSovequ9ukVQvLMOzHp5fDBKy1xWFSr 2JqGCckL59QXlDntQfbGV/9K6FPiGGTCunwOXOg5JcrALXqH8q+yBgKw0ZbnXiSznexdfQ2K1st2E gs8jSx1Qz/I+IHJ/cS6Uf2RPqt7H9+OOV7CzyQcbckRUNOYaL2fHhJlA9/uoABgWAISTr5R2/IeuB m4T73scj/0uUpw==; In-Reply-To: (message from Christopher Dimech on Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:06:47 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:322765 Archived-At: > From: Christopher Dimech > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:06:47 +0200 > > > However, _distribution_ of such a nonfree combination would violate > > GPLv3. > > Despite this clarity, there's a recurring problem with the community: > some maintainers go beyond the requirements of the GPL3 by creating > additional barriers within the source code to prevent what they perceive > as undesirable use cases. > > This could involve adding checks to verify that only certain libraries > are used or implementing "allowed-lists" to restrict what modifications > can be made or with what the software can interact. > > It's quite right to argue that these additional obstacles are > unnecessary and, in some cases, counterproductive. The GPL3 already sets > clear boundaries — if a nonfree module or library is being used in a way > that is kept private and not distributed, it is perfectly legal under > the license. The problem arises when maintainers attempt to enforce > additional restrictions that go beyond the license’s requirements, > sometimes under the misconception that doing so aligns with the GPL's > spirit. The maintainers only add these obstacles when there's a request for Emacs as a project to distribute code which would allow making Emacs a front-end for non-free software. As long as such code is used privately by someone, or even left on some repository outside of Emacs, it is not our business (although distributing non-compliant software which claims to be compliant is against the law). But please understand that you cannot request _us_ to include such code in Emacs, because then _we_ will be either violating the GPL or encouraging use of non-free software. And please don't forget or ignore that in addition to GPL violations, there's one more aspect involved here, and that is not to encourage use of non-free software. For the same reason we don't mention non-free programs or libraries or fonts in our sources and documentation, we do not intend to make it easy for people to use non-free shared libraries by providing _our_ code that caters to such use cases. Emacs is Free Software, so anyone can take its sources and modify them to do whatever they want, but don't expect _us_ to do that as part of the official Emacs sources. This is not new, although some people tend to raise the same issues here time and again for some reason. > For instance, claims that using a nonfree library with a GPL3-covered > module is inherently illegal reflect a misunderstanding of the > license. It would be illegal for a library to claim GPL compliance when in fact there's no compliance, yes. Other than that, no one said anything about the legal aspects; the issues discussed in this thread are our usual ethics that precludes us from encouraging use of non-free software in conjunction with Emacs. > As clarified, such usage is only problematic if the > software is distributed. Unfortunately, these misunderstandings can lead > to a unpleasant environment where maintainers unnecessarily police the > actions of users or other developers, potentially stifling innovation > and cooperation. It could, but it doesn't, not in this case. > Moreover, some maintainers might believe they are in a better position > to judge what is or isn't permissible under the GPL3. This is a strawman: no one said anything about GPL; the fact that the symbol required by loading dynamic modules has "GPL" in its name does not contradict this, because the requirement is to be GPL-compatible, not GPLv3.