The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Uday S Reddy]

Stephen J. Turnbull writes:

> BTW, you forgot David Reitter, who must fork because Aquamacs is
> dedicated to implementing features that make his proprietary platform
> (the Mac) more attractive for users than free platforms -- and such
> features are not allowed as a matter of Emacs policy.

I suppose this is a legal issue, and can't just be settled by
newsgroup debates.

But it seems that the FSF copyright policy has become a bugbear, which
might not have been the original intention.  The current situation is
highly asymmetric.  Anybody, including a private corporation, can use
the FSF codebase to develop their variants, but Gnu Emacs can't use
their enhancements to enrich itself.  So, Gnu ends up lagging behind
and, perhaps in cases like Aquamacs, not even being able to enter the
territory.  It leads to more and more forking, making life hard for
the package developers and becoming a disservice to the users.

Can't we find a way out of this dilemma?

Cheers,
Uday

The copyright issue

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Uday S Reddy writes:

 > But it seems that the FSF copyright policy has become a bugbear, which
 > might not have been the original intention.

The effects that the policy has were the original intention, at least
in some sense.

 > The current situation is highly asymmetric.  Anybody, including a
 > private corporation, can use the FSF codebase to develop their
 > variants,

Yes.  That's called "software freedom", and this effect was intended
for sure.

 > but Gnu Emacs can't use their enhancements to enrich itself.

Enrichment is not the goal here.  Software freedom is.  In cases where
GNU Emacs refuses code because it doesn't own it, that's a deliberate
choice made in the interest of software freedom.

 > So, Gnu ends up lagging behind and, perhaps in cases like Aquamacs,
 > not even being able to enter the territory.

Aquamacs has no legal problems AFAIK, and for all I know David has
already assigned that code to the FSF.  (The point is the
*possibility*, not whether he's actually done so.)  GNU just doesn't
want that code in Emacs until the corresponding features are available
on free systems.

 > Can't we find a way out of this dilemma?

A way out of most of the "dilemma" has existed for 15 years.  Today it
is called XEmacs, and there are other alternative paths as well.  Most
of the people here simply don't find those roads acceptable.

In other words, "Problem?  What problem?"

And-I-I-took-the-one-less-traveled-by-ly y'rs,

Re: The copyright issue

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Uday" == Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk> writes:

Uday> Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
>> BTW, you forgot David Reitter, who must fork because Aquamacs is
>> dedicated to implementing features that make his proprietary platform
>> (the Mac) more attractive for users than free platforms -- and such
>> features are not allowed as a matter of Emacs policy.

Uday> Can't we find a way out of this dilemma?

You're confusing the license with the *policy*.  It's not the GPL that
prevents Aquamacs features from being folded in.  It's the Emacs project
leads in particular, setting and enforcing policy.

I'm not taking a side on this debate, but I did want to clarify the
realms properly.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

Re: The copyright issue

[Dan Nicolaescu]

merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

>>>>>> "Uday" == Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk> writes:
>
> Uday> Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
>>> BTW, you forgot David Reitter, who must fork because Aquamacs is
>>> dedicated to implementing features that make his proprietary platform
>>> (the Mac) more attractive for users than free platforms -- and such
>>> features are not allowed as a matter of Emacs policy.
>
> Uday> Can't we find a way out of this dilemma?
>
> You're confusing the license with the *policy*.  It's not the GPL that
> prevents Aquamacs features from being folded in.  It's the Emacs project
> leads in particular, setting and enforcing policy.

Even that is not quite the case.  Almost none of the Aquamacs changes
have even been proposed for inclusion here.  Some might be acceptable,
but we'll never know as long as there's no desire to merge them...

Re: The copyright issue

[Miles Bader]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org> writes:
> Even that is not quite the case.  Almost none of the Aquamacs changes
> have even been proposed for inclusion here.  Some might be acceptable,
> but we'll never know as long as there's no desire to merge them...

I do think it's important to note that Aquamacs is basically a pretty
friendly port.  I get the impression that the reasons it hasn't really
fed back into mainstream Emacs so much is more out of a sense that the
changes are a little too mac-specific/kludgely-implemented (perhaps
along with a lack of time to clean things up).

[I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression I get anyway...]

-Miles

-- 
Barometer, n. An ingenious instrument which indicates what kind of weather we
are having.

Re: The copyright issue

[Stefan Monnier]

> I do think it's important to note that Aquamacs is basically a pretty
> friendly port.  I get the impression that the reasons it hasn't really
> fed back into mainstream Emacs so much is more out of a sense that the
> changes are a little too mac-specific/kludgely-implemented (perhaps
> along with a lack of time to clean things up).

Also some of the changes affect the default behavior in ways which would
cause endless arguments here or would simply not fly.


        Stefan

Re: The copyright issue

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org> writes:
>> Even that is not quite the case.  Almost none of the Aquamacs changes
>> have even been proposed for inclusion here.  Some might be acceptable,
>> but we'll never know as long as there's no desire to merge them...
>
> I do think it's important to note that Aquamacs is basically a pretty
> friendly port. 

It's good that it's changed, it didn't use to be that way.

>  I get the impression that the reasons it hasn't really
> fed back into mainstream Emacs so much is more out of a sense that the
> changes are a little too mac-specific/kludgely-implemented (perhaps
> along with a lack of time to clean things up).

We'll never know if they are not submitted...

> [I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression I get anyway...]

Re: The copyright issue

[Miles Bader]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org> writes:
>> I do think it's important to note that Aquamacs is basically a pretty
>> friendly port. 
>
> It's good that it's changed, it didn't use to be that way.

How so?

I know that they've got their own idiosyncratic ideas of how the Emacs
UI should look (awful, but apparently consistent with macos), and it
doesn't really jive all that well with mainstream Emacs, but that's not
what I'm talking about.  I'm just talking about the attitudes of the
maintainers.

-Miles

-- 
A zen-buddhist walked into a pizza shop and
said, "Make me one with everything."

Re: The copyright issue

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org> writes:
>>> I do think it's important to note that Aquamacs is basically a pretty
>>> friendly port. 
>>
>> It's good that it's changed, it didn't use to be that way.
>
> How so?

The home page used to diss emacs very aggressively and tout
contributions to emacs, that at that time were just fixing a bug in
bug-report.  I posted about this on the list some time ago.  But
better leave the issue to rest, it's much better now.


> I know that they've got their own idiosyncratic ideas of how the Emacs
> UI should look (awful, but apparently consistent with macos), and it
> doesn't really jive all that well with mainstream Emacs, but that's not
> what I'm talking about.  I'm just talking about the attitudes of the
> maintainers.

Same here.

Re: The copyright issue

[Adrian Robert]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org> writes:


> > You're confusing the license with the *policy*.  It's not the GPL that
> > prevents Aquamacs features from being folded in.  It's the Emacs project
> > leads in particular, setting and enforcing policy.
> 
> Even that is not quite the case.  Almost none of the Aquamacs changes
> have even been proposed for inclusion here.  Some might be acceptable,
> but we'll never know as long as there's no desire to merge them...

Actually, I would say the merging of the NS port was kind of a test case,
because it had a number of features that weren't quite as Mac-specific in
function or extensive in implementation as Aquamacs, that the maintainer (me)
wanted to bring in.  There was various debate on the specifics of particular
cases, but in the end most things that were not already implemented at least by
the X11 port were removed.  

My impression was that the standards for admitting a feature, particularly if it
is implemented only on one platform at first, are a bit different if it is the
X11 port introducing it rather than one of the ports to non-free platforms. 
This could result from the typical usage of the lead maintainers, the historic
origins of the project, or both.  Nothing wrong with it.

But it seems clear that the even more NS/Mac-specific orientation of many of
Aquamacs's features would be even less likely to be accepted.  And again,
nothing wrong with that.  David Reitter and Yamamoto Mitsuharu, maintainer of
another Mac-specific fork, are in agreement that the best place for such
features IS in forks / third-party distributions.

(I happen to disagree, but I've already said my piece on the issue before on
emacs-devel, and these kinds of policies ARE up to the project leads, so I'm
happy to leave it.)


-Adrian

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk> writes:

> Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
>
>> BTW, you forgot David Reitter, who must fork because Aquamacs is
>> dedicated to implementing features that make his proprietary platform
>> (the Mac) more attractive for users than free platforms -- and such
>> features are not allowed as a matter of Emacs policy.
>
> I suppose this is a legal issue, and can't just be settled by
> newsgroup debates.
>
> But it seems that the FSF copyright policy has become a bugbear, which
> might not have been the original intention.

It is a popular misconception that Richard must be oblivious to the
consequences of what he is doing.  If you bother to check, you'll find
that not only has he been very consistent for the last 30 years, but
also the effects have been basically the intended and predicted ones.

There are consequences to the decisions and policies, and some people
don't like the consequences.  If people bothered to check them for
consistency with the stated goals, they'd find them likely not just
intentional but also effective.

> The current situation is highly asymmetric.  Anybody, including a
> private corporation, can use the FSF codebase to develop their
> variants, but Gnu Emacs can't use their enhancements to enrich itself.

That's a consequence of having Emacs be a piece of software
intentionally keeping the copyright limited to few parties.

If you want to keep the GPL on a work of yours strongly enforceable, it
is safest not to reap any of the benefits you grant downstream yourself.
There is not much case law to rely on otherwise.

> So, Gnu ends up lagging behind and, perhaps in cases like Aquamacs,
> not even being able to enter the territory.  It leads to more and more
> forking, making life hard for the package developers and becoming a
> disservice to the users.
>
> Can't we find a way out of this dilemma?

No.  While it has been popular to "debate" this "dilemma" for the past
30 years, nothing has changed regarding the origin and evaluation of the
underlying choices.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Richard Stallman]

      So, Gnu ends up lagging behind
    and, perhaps in cases like Aquamacs, not even being able to enter the
    territory.

It is not that we can't -- it is that we won't.  Our goal is to
eliminate nonfree software, not enhance it.

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Uday S Reddy]

Richard Stallman writes:

> It is not that we can't -- it is that we won't.  Our goal is to
> eliminate nonfree software, not enhance it.

Ok, I understand the revolutionary aspect of the project (which I
might not have fully understood before).

But there are two further questions:

- What is the best way to live in the mixed economy until the
revolution succeeds?  If I understand correctly, Aquamacs *is* free
software, but its level of cooperation with proprietary software might
be different from Gnu's.

- The copyright problem also seems to block Gnu from absorbing, or
even partrnering with, other fully free software (with no question of
any nonfree software).  I have in mind all the stuff on nongnu.org.
Your statement above isn't addressing that issue.

Cheers,
Uday

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Fren Zeee]

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Richard Stallman writes:
>
> > It is not that we can't -- it is that we won't.  Our goal is to
> > eliminate nonfree software, not enhance it.
>
> Ok, I understand the revolutionary aspect of the project (which I
> might not have fully understood before).
>
> But there are two further questions:
>
> - What is the best way to live in the mixed economy until the
> revolution succeeds?  If I understand correctly, Aquamacs *is* free
> software, but its level of cooperation with proprietary software might
> be different from Gnu's.
>
> - The copyright problem also seems to block Gnu from absorbing, or
> even partrnering with, other fully free software (with no question of
> any nonfree software).  I have in mind all the stuff on nongnu.org.
> Your statement above isn't addressing that issue.
>

The only way to achieve this condition of "freedom" is to educate the
people and by answering the architecture type questions in a doc then
I am writing. No company will dare charge more than service fee in
that case. But now its a monopoly. This will achieve results faster
than waiting till the end of the world which is by the way coming very
soon according to many calenders.

Bug on calendar (was: The copyright issue)

[Óscar Fuentes]

Fren Zeee <frenzeee@gmail.com> writes:

[snip]

> This will achieve results faster than waiting till the end of the
> world which is by the way coming very soon according to many
> calenders.

emacs -Q

M-x calendar ENTER

Under the "Goto" menu I see "End of week", "End of month", "End of year"
but not "End of the world"

This is a serious omission that makes Emacs calendar look bad compared
to many other calendars.

Is anyone working on a patch? Also please don't accept diary entries for
dates after the end of the world.

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Uday S Reddy writes:

 > - What is the best way to live in the mixed economy until the
 >   revolution succeeds?

Isn't the answer obvious?  Don't live in a mixed economy.  Accept only
free software.

I'd be happy to discuss this in more depth, but this is not the place.
Reply-To set to me.

 > - The copyright problem also seems to block Gnu from absorbing, or
 >    even partrnering with, other fully free software.

Partnership?  No problem at all.  The Linux/BSD/TeX/X11/Perl/Python/
Apache/OpenSSH/GNU systems that many of us use involve cooperation of
many different licenses in order that the software distributed under
them can partner up.

"Absorb", of course, is another matter.  But here that is being used
as a means to freedom; it is not freedom in itself.

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Richard Stallman]

    - What is the best way to live in the mixed economy until the
    revolution succeeds?

That is a very broad question, so broad I have no idea how to respond
to it.  (I don't see any specific connection with Aquamacs.)

I can only say that thousands of free software developers
are alive today, and I don't think free software development
is fatal for many of them.

    - The copyright problem also seems to block Gnu from absorbing, or
    even partrnering with, other fully free software (with no question of
    any nonfree software).

I am not sure what you have in mind when you say "partnering with",
but I tend to think this is not a real problem in practice.

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Stuart Hacking]

On 5 August 2010 10:12, Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> But it seems that the FSF copyright policy has become a bugbear, which
> might not have been the original intention.  The current situation is
> highly asymmetric.  Anybody, including a private corporation, can use
> the FSF codebase to develop their variants, but Gnu Emacs can't use
> their enhancements to enrich itself.

It is indeed sad that some corporations feel unable to contribute back
to the community that supports them. This is not unique to GNU though.

> So, Gnu ends up lagging behind
> and, perhaps in cases like Aquamacs, not even being able to enter the
> territory.  It leads to more and more forking, making life hard for
> the package developers and becoming a disservice to the users.
>
> Can't we find a way out of this dilemma?

Correct me if I'm wrong but there aren't that many emacsen left out in
the wilds anymore. We have GNU Emacs and XEmacs.

Aquamacs and W32 Emacs are based of the GNU version. The
creators/maintainers of these branches are actively engaged in this
mailing list helping to improve the core project. Yet, they also
provide enhancements that help emacs to better fit the non-free
platforms. This is good for the users themselves.

This doesn't look like a major problem to me.*

--Stuart

* One day we'll live in a perfect world where everyone runs GNU/Linux,
etc, etc... let me know how that turns out.

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:37, Stuart Hacking <stuhacking@gmail.com> wrote:

> * One day we'll live in a perfect world where everyone runs GNU/Linux,

Of couse not! In a perfect world everyone would run GNU/Hurd...

    Juanma

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:37, Stuart Hacking <stuhacking@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> * One day we'll live in a perfect world where everyone runs GNU/Linux,
>
> Of couse not! In a perfect world everyone would run GNU/Hurd...

In a perfect world, I would not need to know who kneels before Emacs and
hands the computing resources over.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 13:16, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> In a perfect world, I would not need to know who kneels before Emacs and
> hands the computing resources over.

Oh, so you want your OS to be GNU/Emacs.

    Juanma

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 13:16, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> In a perfect world, I would not need to know who kneels before Emacs and
>> hands the computing resources over.
>
> Oh, so you want your OS to be GNU/Emacs.

Huh?  What is a king without servants?  But I am not interested in the
servants' names.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Deniz Dogan]

2010/8/6 Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:37, Stuart Hacking <stuhacking@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> * One day we'll live in a perfect world where everyone runs GNU/Linux,
>
> Of couse not! In a perfect world everyone would run GNU/Hurd...
>

In a perfect world everyone would run free software.

-- 
Deniz Dogan

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 06.08.2010 13:25, schrieb Deniz Dogan:
> 2010/8/6 Juanma Barranquero<lekktu@gmail.com>:
>    
>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:37, Stuart Hacking<stuhacking@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> * One day we'll live in a perfect world where everyone runs GNU/Linux,
>>>        
>> Of couse not! In a perfect world everyone would run GNU/Hurd...
>>
>>      
> In a perfect world everyone would run free software.
>
>    

As it's written: Once the lamb sleeps beneath the lion - but all people 
have to (do what ?) ;-)

Re: The copyright issue

[Walter Alejandro Iglesias]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:

> Am 06.08.2010 13:25, schrieb Deniz Dogan:
>> 2010/8/6 Juanma Barranquero<lekktu@gmail.com>:
>>    
>>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:37, Stuart Hacking<stuhacking@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> * One day we'll live in a perfect world where everyone runs GNU/Linux,
>>>>        
>>> Of couse not! In a perfect world everyone would run GNU/Hurd...
>>>
>>>      
>> In a perfect world everyone would run free software.
>>
>>    
>
> As it's written: Once the lamb sleeps beneath the lion - but all
> people have to (do what ?) ;-)


Utopia, perfection, freedom.  Static concepts.  Products.

People pay for comfort.  Pay, for example, for an OS where "popular"
software-hardware works out of the box.  Some day this
software-hardware is outdated, it is not popular anymore.  So,
everybody trashes it and buys a new one.

Don't think, "Just do it".  Don't ask yourself why to do this of that,
why you've done what you've done along your life.  Be pragmatic, be
concrete, be specific.  Think in something new.  Be like another
transmission gear in the machine.  Do you think you are special? :)

Myopia and statistics say this way of life works.  Recursively, it is
working because it is popular.  People pay for an ideology, pay for a
way of life, pay for a concept, in the same way they pay for an OS and
this dress that use that actress in that box-office hit film.  Don't
think, it is bad for your health, it wrinkles your brow.

People comfortably live in this kind of world because they lack of
genuine ambition.  Their ambition is as irrational as hungry; traduced
to software marketing their hungry ask for "new look and more
features".  But don't take it literally, whatever shit imitating the
look and feel and promising the same new features of this product for
which a big company put millions in marketing.

So, put them in a perfect world (a world with no past and no future)
and they will ask you for more.  More shit.

By the way, has someone understood 'tit for tat' Linus Torvald's
argument?  Does Linus really knows why he chose GPL?  Was really he
who chose GPL or somebody else convinced him with the argument that it
would be the better way LINUX get popular?

People like chocolates, candy, cars, video games, freedom...

Re: The copyright issue

[Richard Stallman]

The aim of the GNU Project is to win freedom for software users.
The only way I can relate your message to the issue
is to interpret it as defeatism.  Please take that somewhere else.
Whether you think we will succeed or fail is not relevant
because we are going to try anyway.

Re: The copyright issue

[Walter Alejandro Iglesias]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> The aim of the GNU Project is to win freedom for software users.
> The only way I can relate your message to the issue
> is to interpret it as defeatism.  Please take that somewhere else.
> Whether you think we will succeed or fail is not relevant
> because we are going to try anyway.

Obviously, my thinking does not have "cow super powers".  It would be
wonderful to be able to change the world with just my thinking!

You said that popularity of GNU is not important for you.  This means
that you think that the fact that people just 'use' or 'consume' free
software in not the point.  This is exactly what I meant with my
particular 'acid' sense of humor: people must understand 'why' to use
free software.  This is relevant.

I think you've already succeed in develop free software.  You gave
people the option; this is a big achievement.  But the other half is
initiative and responsibility of the other.  To transgress this barrier
is not respect the other.

Besides, what kind of achievment is to convice people to be free.  It is
contradictory.  What is important is not the "state" but the wish.  And
this is innate of each one.  There is nothing that you can do at this
level.  To assume this is not defeatism, is to be able to live without
fool yourself (what is most people cinically do and call optimism).

Well I know this is not the place to discuss this.  So I take your word
and I will take this somewhere else.  Preferably where each one can say
what really think...  Ops!  This is an Utopia. :)

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Walter Alejandro Iglesias <eloi@roquesor.com> writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> The aim of the GNU Project is to win freedom for software users.
>> The only way I can relate your message to the issue
>> is to interpret it as defeatism.  Please take that somewhere else.
>> Whether you think we will succeed or fail is not relevant
>> because we are going to try anyway.
>
> Obviously, my thinking does not have "cow super powers".  It would be
> wonderful to be able to change the world with just my thinking!

There is nothing else that is going to change the world, in particular
to the better.

> You said that popularity of GNU is not important for you.  This means
> that you think that the fact that people just 'use' or 'consume' free
> software in not the point.  This is exactly what I meant with my
> particular 'acid' sense of humor: people must understand 'why' to use
> free software.  This is relevant.

Not much.  Most people don't value personal freedom either.  They still
benefit from it.  It is important that the message registers with enough
people that care and make a difference.  But most people are apathetic
in almost all of their endeavors.  They pick their authority and their
nose and stick with it.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Walter Alejandro Iglesias]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> benefit from it.  It is important that the message registers with enough
> people that care and make a difference.

This is my goal when I say what I say and not to discourage free
software developers.  This does not pretend to be "a way of think" or a
new religion or a pseudo political movement (DNG Defeatism is not GNU
:)).  It is just an observation.

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Walter Alejandro Iglesias <eloi@roquesor.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> benefit from it.  It is important that the message registers with enough
>> people that care and make a difference.
>
> This is my goal when I say what I say and not to discourage free
> software developers.

How about preaching elsewhere instead of, of all things, to the Pope's
choir?

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Walter Alejandro Iglesias]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Walter Alejandro Iglesias <eloi@roquesor.com> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> This is my goal when I say what I say and not to discourage free
>> software developers.
>
> How about preaching elsewhere instead of, of all things, to the Pope's
> choir?

Because:

>>> benefit from it.  It is important that the message registers with enough
>>> people that care and make a difference.

What I've said could be similar but not the same you've said.  I think
each one point of view enrich conceptions.  This not happens in a choir.

Do you know why a Missa repeats a short piece of text serveral times?
No, this is not my way.  I am not a priest, I am not a soldier.  It is
not my goal to record a message in no brain.  You are misanderstanding
to make oneself understood with selling like an evangelist.

I undestand Emacs church and Sant Ignucius like a joke, a sarcasm.  Am I
wrong?

Re: The copyright issue

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Walter Alejandro Iglesias <eloi@roquesor.com>
() Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:58:52 +0200

   I undestand Emacs church and Sant Ignucius like a joke, a sarcasm.
   Am I wrong?

leagues trodden step by step,
a place to rest my tired head?
shadows of leaves only moolight swept,
the night so short, the road so long.

owl above, passed thrice each way,
will it meet me once i've arrived?
shuddering heaves, the scrape of slate,
chalk surrendered: writ right, writ wrong.

now i fly, too, on the fourth and fifth,
can the horizon truly circle the square?
surely bereaved the spaces 'twixt myths:
too close seems weak, and too far, strong.

matters not when i choose to alight;
matters not how i choose to delight.

thi

Re: The copyright issue

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 14.08.2010 18:30, schrieb Thien-Thi Nguyen:
> () Walter Alejandro Iglesias<eloi@roquesor.com>
> () Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:58:52 +0200
>
>     I undestand Emacs church and Sant Ignucius like a joke, a sarcasm.
>     Am I wrong?
>
> leagues trodden step by step,
> a place to rest my tired head?
> shadows of leaves only moolight swept,
> the night so short, the road so long.
>
> owl above, passed thrice each way,
> will it meet me once i've arrived?
> shuddering heaves, the scrape of slate,
> chalk surrendered: writ right, writ wrong.
>
> now i fly, too, on the fourth and fifth,
> can the horizon truly circle the square?
> surely bereaved the spaces 'twixt myths:
> too close seems weak, and too far, strong.
>
> matters not when i choose to alight;
> matters not how i choose to delight.
>
> thi
>
>
>    

Thanks, Thi,

what about this bit:

Advocatus Diaboli

Deep in my heart I hate despots and priests.
Still more the genius who sucks up to them.

Tief im Herzen haß ich den Troß der Despoten und Pfaffen,
Aber noch mehr das Genie, macht es gemein sich damit.

Odio profundamente la turba de los grandes señores
y de los sacerdotes,
pero más odio al genio que se compromete con ellos.

(Friedrich Hölderlin)

Re: The copyright issue

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>
() Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:59:28 +0200

   what about this bit:

   Advocatus Diaboli

   Deep in my heart I hate despots and priests.
   Still more the genius who sucks up to them.

   Tief im Herzen haß ich den Troß der Despoten und Pfaffen,
   Aber noch mehr das Genie, macht es gemein sich damit.

   Odio profundamente la turba de los grandes señores
   y de los sacerdotes,
   pero más odio al genio que se compromete con ellos.

   (Friedrich Hölderlin)

Perhaps Emacs would say:

(first)
Deep in ‘eval’ I throw on error and stack overflow.
Matters not who wrote the code; it cannot continue.

(then)
I fault no programmer even those who let me segv.
M-x gdb (me), please, and together we shall hack.

Re: The copyright issue

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 16.08.2010 09:07, schrieb Thien-Thi Nguyen:
> () Andreas Röhler<andreas.roehler@online.de>
> () Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:59:28 +0200
>
>     what about this bit:
>
>     Advocatus Diaboli
>
>     Deep in my heart I hate despots and priests.
>     Still more the genius who sucks up to them.
>
>     Tief im Herzen haß ich den Troß der Despoten und Pfaffen,
>     Aber noch mehr das Genie, macht es gemein sich damit.
>
>     Odio profundamente la turba de los grandes señores
>     y de los sacerdotes,
>     pero más odio al genio que se compromete con ellos.
>
>     (Friedrich Hölderlin)
>
> Perhaps Emacs would say:
>
> (first)
> Deep in ‘eval’ I throw on error and stack overflow.
> Matters not who wrote the code; it cannot continue.
>
> (then)
> I fault no programmer even those who let me segv.
> M-x gdb (me), please, and together we shall hack.
>
>    

Fine, until the data is dressed up, the copyright buttons closed and 
some Antigone of best practises
pointing at the dump.

Re: The copyright issue

[Walter Alejandro Iglesias]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:

> Am 14.08.2010 18:30, schrieb Thien-Thi Nguyen:
>> () Walter Alejandro Iglesias<eloi@roquesor.com>
>> () Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:58:52 +0200
>>
>>     I undestand Emacs church and Sant Ignucius like a joke, a sarcasm.
>>     Am I wrong?
>>
>> leagues trodden step by step,
>> a place to rest my tired head?
>> shadows of leaves only moolight swept,
>> the night so short, the road so long.
>>
>> owl above, passed thrice each way,
>> will it meet me once i've arrived?
>> shuddering heaves, the scrape of slate,
>> chalk surrendered: writ right, writ wrong.
>>
>> now i fly, too, on the fourth and fifth,
>> can the horizon truly circle the square?
>> surely bereaved the spaces 'twixt myths:
>> too close seems weak, and too far, strong.
>>
>> matters not when i choose to alight;
>> matters not how i choose to delight.
>>
>> thi
>>
>>
>>    
>
> Thanks, Thi,
>
> what about this bit:
>
> Advocatus Diaboli
>
> Deep in my heart I hate despots and priests.
> Still more the genius who sucks up to them.
>
> Tief im Herzen haß ich den Troß der Despoten und Pfaffen,
> Aber noch mehr das Genie, macht es gemein sich damit.
>
> Odio profundamente la turba de los grandes señores
> y de los sacerdotes,
> pero más odio al genio que se compromete con ellos.
>
> (Friedrich Hölderlin)

Ah you, affectionate persons.
You take delight in poetry's mother: blood.
Others blood.  Of course.

At least here, at Emacs church, no genius will be crucified.
Courtesy, not cowardice.

Re: The copyright issue

[Bastien]

Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:

> In a perfect world everyone would run free software.

I suspect the world is not perfect just to let people have an
opportunity to contribute to free software and to fight about
its definition.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Bernardo Barros]

Do you mean "In my perfect world Hurd would be what Linux is?" or Hurd
would give an extra advantage? There was a clear project for Hurd so
you could see in what direction it would go if it had more
development/developers? I don't see anything wrong with Linux. Well,
there is. I work with audio a lot and I have to tweak to have realtime
and low-latency for my audio system, so it should have it out of the
box when a audio program is running like mac/osx.

2010/8/6 Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:37, Stuart Hacking <stuhacking@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> * One day we'll live in a perfect world where everyone runs GNU/Linux,
>
> Of couse not! In a perfect world everyone would run GNU/Hurd...
>
>     Juanma
>
>

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Richard Stallman]

    Do you mean "In my perfect world Hurd would be what Linux is?" or Hurd
    would give an extra advantage?

My reading is that, in his perfect world, the GNU Hurd would have the
popularity that Linux currently enjoys.  He did not state for what
reason or motive the users of that world would have chosen it.
But we can presume that, if the Hurd were this popular for a long time,
the community would make it work very well.

If I could ask a genie to grant me one wish for free software, it
would not be about the popularity of the GNU Hurd, or even the
popularity of the GNU system.  I would wish for all software users to
have freedom and value freedom.

Re: The copyright issue (Was: Key bindings proposal)

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:00, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> My reading is that, in his perfect world, the GNU Hurd would have the
> popularity that Linux currently enjoys.

Yes.

> He did not state for what
> reason or motive the users of that world would have chosen it.

Pitfalls and all, it is based on a stronger technical foundation
(though of course Linux has evolved a lot from its almost-Minix days).
It is GNU. And it's not from Linus. These are all positives in my
view.

> But we can presume that, if the Hurd were this popular for a long time,
> the community would make it work very well.

Quite likely.

> I would wish for all software users to
> have freedom and value freedom.

And then non-free software would vanish in a puff of smoke, and
lawyers would jump out their windows in the thousands. All positives,
again.

    Juanma

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:00, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> My reading is that, in his perfect world, the GNU Hurd would have the
>> popularity that Linux currently enjoys.
>
> Yes.
>
>> He did not state for what
>> reason or motive the users of that world would have chosen it.
>
> Pitfalls and all, it is based on a stronger technical foundation
> (though of course Linux has evolved a lot from its almost-Minix days).
> It is GNU. And it's not from Linus. These are all positives in my
> view.

I don't see anything inherently problematic in software being under
control of strong-headed people with different views and values than my
own as long as I get to do with it what I want.

I use Emacs, after all.  And certainly not because that makes me feel
closer to all those fantastic easy-going people that give it that
hipster flair.

Get real.  Those people port Emacs to Apple computers.  That's sort like
mounting an accordion bass inside of a violin.  Ok, a violin sucks at
self-accompaniment (Bach's solo cantatas and partitas are more proof
than counterexample if you actually try playing them) and polyphony.
You can't really use it as sole instrument.  But it is a thing of
beauty, not of self-sufficiency.

I lent my violin to my mother.  It weighs less than a bottle of beer and
was made the year Bismarck was born.  My accordion weighs more than a
case of beer and was made five years before I was born.

But it has a lot of buttons to press.  And some levers you won't easily
find somewhere else.  It was not built for me, and both its constructor
as well as its original recipient are long dead, but that's not
something I worry about as long as I get to put my hands on it.  It's a
beast to maintain.  I had it open just this morning.  Maybe I need to
replace a few valves eventually.

I am not worried that Linux is being managed by Linux Torvalds.  He is
doing a reasonably good job.  And I get to put my hands on it.  Because
others are doing a reasonably good job making GNU and a lot of other
stuff run on it.  And I get to put my hands on most of that, too.

So maybe I lost track of my point.  But if I left a mark, C-x C-x should
be all I need.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:

 > So maybe I lost track of my point.  But if I left a mark, C-x C-x
 > should be all I need.

David, that's poetry!  (And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it shows
up in Miles' .sig next week. :-)

Re: The copyright issue

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 15:50, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> I am not worried that Linux is being managed by Linux Torvalds.

I am not worried, either. I just dislike his style.

    Juanma

Re: The copyright issue

[Miles Bader]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:
>> I am not worried that Linux is being managed by Linux Torvalds.
>
> I am not worried, either. I just dislike his style.

Eh?  Unless you're actually working with him, why should you care?

[and even if you are, he's generally a fair-minded and reasonable guy]

-Miles

-- 
XML is like violence.  If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not
using enough of it.

Re: The copyright issue

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 00:49, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:

> Eh?  Unless you're actually working with him, why should you care?

I don't care. I just dislike his style. It's not like I spend
sleepless nights thinking about him.

Project leaders (in free software and elsewhere) are usually
strong-willed people. It's no surprise they have admirers and
detractors. Why should Linus be different?

> [and even if you are, he's generally a fair-minded and reasonable guy]

I've read enough of his messages to think otherwise. YMMV.

    Juanma

Re: The copyright issue

[Miles Bader]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:
> Project leaders (in free software and elsewhere) are usually
> strong-willed people. It's no surprise they have admirers and
> detractors. Why should Linus be different?

I know there are a lot of downright jerks / tyrants in the FOSS world,
and maybe if you see some of Linus's flamey email out of context, and
without actually having worked with him, it might be easy to make the
mistake of tarring him with the same brush.

But I think that would be kind of unfair, since in truth he's not an
asshole, nor is he unfair or hard to work with.

[... and I say that as someone who generally has very little tolerance
for jerks / tyrants... I'll quit a project before I'll put up with an
asshole leader.]

-Miles

-- 
`There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
 Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

Re: The copyright issue

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:06, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:

> and maybe if you see some of Linus's flamey email out of context, and
> without actually having worked with him

No, I haven't actually worked with him.

Out of context, no, I don't think so.

    Juanma

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I am not worried that Linux is being managed by Linux Torvalds.
>>
>> I am not worried, either. I just dislike his style.
>
> Eh?  Unless you're actually working with him, why should you care?
>
> [and even if you are, he's generally a fair-minded and reasonable guy]

He is a blockhead.  But it's not like we don't have our fair share of
them among Emacs developers.  In fact, being a blockhead has been the
principal contribution of mine for a long time.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Stefan Monnier]

> Anybody, including a private corporation, can use the FSF codebase to
> develop their variants, but Gnu Emacs can't use their enhancements to
> enrich itself.

That is not inherently the case.  GNU Emacs (and many other of the GNU
projects that enforce the FSF copyright policy) does include
enhancements provided by private corporations.  The corporation simply
has to sign the necessary paperwork, which they usually do without much
trouble.


        Stefan

Re: The copyright issue

[Uday S Reddy]

>> Anybody, including a private corporation, can use the FSF codebase to
>> develop their variants, but Gnu Emacs can't use their enhancements to
>> enrich itself.

I am sorry.  The intent of my statement was:

Anybody can use the FSF codebase to develop their variants, but Gnu Emacs can't 
use their enhancements to enrich itself unless they assign the copyright to FSF.

Having titled my post "the copyright issue" I forgot to mention copyright again.

It seemed to me from from Stephen's statement that David Reitter's enhancements 
had aspects that could not be copyrighted by FSF.  But there are also other 
instances where the problem is acute, e.g., in taking stuff from XEmacs or in 
including VM in the Gnu distribution etc.

In all cases, it is the free software that I am talking about.  It seems odd to 
me that Gnu and FSF do not simply embrace all forms of free software.

> That is not inherently the case.  GNU Emacs (and many other of the GNU
> projects that enforce the FSF copyright policy) does include
> enhancements provided by private corporations.  The corporation simply
> has to sign the necessary paperwork, which they usually do without much
> trouble.

I am really glad to hear that corporations do that.  But it might actually be 
easier for corporations to sign over the copyright than it is for private 
groups.  Many people contribute over the years and they get dispersed.  Even if 
one of them is unable or unwilling to assign copyright to FSF, Gnu has to stay 
away.  So, it seems that Gnu has needlessly isolated itself on an island from 
which it cannot escape.  There is an ocean of free software outside Gnu, but 
Gnu can't touch it.  Isn't it absurd?

Cheers,
Uday

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk> writes:

> I am really glad to hear that corporations do that.  But it might
> actually be easier for corporations to sign over the copyright than it
> is for private groups.  Many people contribute over the years and they
> get dispersed.

That's why the FSF requires assignments upfront instead of hoping to get
them eventually.

> Even if one of them is unable or unwilling to assign copyright to FSF,
> Gnu has to stay away.  So, it seems that Gnu has needlessly isolated
> itself on an island from which it cannot escape.

Not "needlessly", obviously, and it is not the GNU project that has
written the copyright laws requiring this sort of carefulness.

> There is an ocean of free software outside Gnu, but Gnu can't touch
> it.  Isn't it absurd?

The GPL is "strong copyleft".  If you can't go after GPL violations
because of dubious standing, it is teethless.

That's why the GNU project won't (not "can't") touch software that could
take away the strong and certain defensibility of the GPL.

If you are not interested in that defensibility, projects like FreeBSD
exist.  The commercial success of the GPL universe, also with corporate
contributors, tells us that clearly there _is_ a place and desire for
strong copyleft.

So there is absolutely no point in continuing to pollute the Emacs
developer list with a discussion that was current a number of decades
ago, with nothing changed in the reasoning since then, and with history
showing that the decisions made were sound and led to an advance in the
availability of free software.

The discussion has been _over_ for dozens of years, the decisions have
been _made_ long ago and _vindicated_ by the resulting developments.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[rogers-emacs]

   From: Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk>
   Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:39:29 +0100

   . . . The intent of my statement was:

   Anybody can use the FSF codebase to develop their variants, but Gnu
   Emacs can't use their enhancements to enrich itself unless they
   assign the copyright to FSF.

   Having titled my post "the copyright issue" I forgot to mention
   copyright again.

   . . .

   In all cases, it is the free software that I am talking about.  It
   seems odd to me that Gnu and FSF do not simply embrace all forms of
   free software.

The copyright issue is not about freedom, but about control.  The FSF
has sensibly decided not to accept contributions it does not own, lest
the owner attempt to revoke permission to use them at a later date.

					-- Bob Rogers
					   http://www.rgrjr.com/

Re: The copyright issue

[Uday S Reddy]

rogers-emacs@rgrjr.dyndns.org writes:

> The copyright issue is not about freedom, but about control.  The FSF
> has sensibly decided not to accept contributions it does not own, lest
> the owner attempt to revoke permission to use them at a later date.

Permission?  For what?

GPL software can be freely copied, modified, and redistributed.  There
is no way to restrain anybody from doing it.  So, I am not sure what
permission you are thinking of.

Cheers,
Uday

Re: The copyright issue

[rogers-emacs]

   From: Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk>
   Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 21:31:22 +0100

   rogers-emacs@rgrjr.dyndns.org writes:

   > The copyright issue is not about freedom, but about control.  The FSF
   > has sensibly decided not to accept contributions it does not own, lest
   > the owner attempt to revoke permission to use them at a later date.

   Permission?  For what?

   GPL software can be freely copied, modified, and redistributed.  There
   is no way to restrain anybody from doing it.  So, I am not sure what
   permission you are thinking of.

   Cheers,
   Uday

If it is indeed GPL software.  IIRC, somebody once contributed code that
his employer later claimed was not his to contribute.  Having clear
ownership avoids such hassles.  At the very least, the contributor must
claim to be the owner; if that's not true, it's not the FSF's fault.

					-- Bob

Re: The copyright issue

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

rogers-emacs@rgrjr.dyndns.org writes:

 > If it is indeed GPL software.  IIRC, somebody once contributed code
 > that his employer later claimed was not his to contribute.  Having
 > clear ownership avoids such hassles.

The assignment has nothing to do with that, however.  What's necessary
in that case is not an assignment by the author, but a disclaimer of
interest (ownership) by the employer.

 > At the very least, the contributor must claim to be the owner; if
 > that's not true, it's not the FSF's fault.

An assignment clearly involves a claim by the contributor to be an
owner.

All in all, the assignment policy can't be justified as a matter of
"prudence".  The assignment itself only minimally decreases the risk
of unclear ownership to the project.  The employer disclaimers are
important for risk management, but the assignments are pretty clearly
mainly desirable in order that the FSF may carry out its active
missions of defending existing GPL software against license violations
and copyright infringement, encouraging use of the GPL for software
previously covered by other licenses (whether proprietary or
permissive), and (perhaps the largest use in practice) smooth
execution of changes in licensing strategy (eg, the introduction of
the FDL for existing manuals).

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> rogers-emacs@rgrjr.dyndns.org writes:
>
>  > If it is indeed GPL software.  IIRC, somebody once contributed code
>  > that his employer later claimed was not his to contribute.  Having
>  > clear ownership avoids such hassles.
>
> The assignment has nothing to do with that, however.  What's necessary
> in that case is not an assignment by the author, but a disclaimer of
> interest (ownership) by the employer.

The assignment makes the author responsible for the legal status of his
contributions.  Including clearing up any ownership issues.

> All in all, the assignment policy can't be justified as a matter of
> "prudence".  The assignment itself only minimally decreases the risk
> of unclear ownership to the project.

I think it significantly reduces the risk of an FSF claim being thrown
out of court because of "dirty hands".  If they have a contractual
assurance that the code was free from rights of third persons, that's
certainly helpful even where the other party in the conflict is not the
contributor himself.

> The employer disclaimers are important for risk management,

And the FSF certainly can't figure out the details of employment for
every contributor.  The assignment makes the contributor accountable for
doing a best-faith effort.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:

 > The assignment makes the author responsible for the legal status of
 > his contributions.  Including clearing up any ownership issues.

Nope.  It makes him liable to be sued by the FSF for legal expenses,
and maybe the cost of ripping out the code, if the FSF *loses* (or
maybe, if it determines in good faith that it's going to lose and
settles out of court).  If the FSF *wins*, it promises to shoulder the
legal costs.  If the contributor is responsible, the ownership issues
have already been cleared up: the code has to come out.  This is a big
lose for the FSF, no matter how you look at it.  At this point the
only thing it can do is sue the contributor.  That's not a win.

 > And the FSF certainly can't figure out the details of employment
 > for every contributor.  The assignment makes the contributor
 > accountable for doing a best-faith effort.

A simple affadavit of ownership would be equally effective.  FSF
*ownership* is needed for other reasons.  It's not about ownership
risk management.

Re: The copyright issue

[Richard Stallman]

    Nope.  It makes him liable to be sued by the FSF for legal expenses,
    and maybe the cost of ripping out the code, if the FSF *loses* (or
    maybe, if it determines in good faith that it's going to lose and
    settles out of court).

I can't see why we would ever want to sue a contributor even if he had
lied to us about he origin of the code.  We would simply take it out.

However, the assignments encourage users to think about the question,
making it much less likely that we will have any problem.

Re: The copyright issue

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 >     Nope.  It makes him liable to be sued by the FSF for legal
 >     expenses, and maybe the cost of ripping out the code, if the
 >     FSF *loses* (or maybe, if it determines in good faith that it's
 >     going to lose and settles out of court).

 > I can't see why we would ever want to sue a contributor even if he
 > had lied to us about he origin of the code.  We would simply take
 > it out.

Exactly.  So the FSF (more precisely, the project) ends up bearing the
cost in any case.

 > However, the assignments encourage users to think about the
 > question, making it much less likely that we will have any problem.

Maybe.  That assumes contributors understand under what conditions
code they author outside of the workplace using their own resources
might not be theirs.  I know I didn't when I signed, although later
research showed it isn't a problem for me.

I think what really causes people to think about it is when they hand
the disclaimer to their boss and the boss says "I'll have to run this
past corporate legal."

Re: The copyright issue

[Richard Stallman]

    Exactly.  So the FSF (more precisely, the project) ends up bearing the
    cost in any case.

Not necessarily in all possible cass.  If we were actually sued, and
it turned out the contributor was at fault, we might insist he should
pay the costs.

But it is unlikely things would go that far.  Normally, if we got a
complaint, we would recheck the facts.  If at that point the
contributor proved to be at fault, we would remove his code.  Most
likely the complainant would be satisfied and would not sue.

Anyway, the main reason for the assignments is not that.
It is to keep the copyright status simple.

    I think what really causes people to think about it is when they hand
    the disclaimer to their boss and the boss says "I'll have to run this
    past corporate legal."

Indeed, the fact that this makes people think about the question
is very useful in avoiding misunderstandings.

Re: The copyright issue

[Richard Stallman]

The main reason our lawyer gave when advising us to ask for copyright
assignments is so that the copyright status of the program is simple.
He said that would help us in court if we need to sue someone for
violating the GPL.

We can make an exception occasionally when it is very important
but we should not make many exceptions.

Re: The copyright issue

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 09.08.2010 12:01, schrieb Richard Stallman:
> The main reason our lawyer gave when advising us to ask for copyright
> assignments is so that the copyright status of the program is simple.
> He said that would help us in court if we need to sue someone for
> violating the GPL.
>
> We can make an exception occasionally when it is very important
> but we should not make many exceptions.
>
>
>    

The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at the 
contributors.
Please consider: adversaires of free software will not ignore this, will 
not miss the point.

BTW we have a prominent example in Germany already, how a career and 
social existence of an free softtware
activist might be ruined.

His name is Jörg Tauss. He was a member of the Parliament, the Bundestag.
Inside Germany as in Europe Jörg Tauss took action against software patents.

Knowing the strength of the lobby, I wondered this time, how he will 
survive.

Meanwhile he is thrown out of the Parliament, thrown out of the party, a 
convicted criminal in the eyes of majority.

Andreas

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:

> Am 09.08.2010 12:01, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>> The main reason our lawyer gave when advising us to ask for copyright
>> assignments is so that the copyright status of the program is simple.
>> He said that would help us in court if we need to sue someone for
>> violating the GPL.
>>
>> We can make an exception occasionally when it is very important
>> but we should not make many exceptions.
>
> The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at
> the contributors.

No, it _takes_ the task of suing for compliance from the shoulders of
the contributors.

> Please consider: adversaires of free software will not ignore this,
> will not miss the point.

Adversaries of free software will notice when the legal position of the
FSF is weak.  I have no idea what "point" you are trying to make.

> BTW we have a prominent example in Germany already, how a career and
> social existence of an free softtware activist might be ruined.
>
> His name is Jörg Tauss. He was a member of the Parliament, the
> Bundestag.  Inside Germany as in Europe Jörg Tauss took action against
> software patents.

The accusation is acquisition and possession of child pornography.  If
you consider this in any way connected with copyright assignment
policies, you are just crazy.  It may be loosely connected with freedom
of information and privacy, but that's utterly, utterly unrelated to the
topic of discussion.  So please get a grip and use, if at all, examples
that have anything to do with the point you are trying to make.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 09.08.2010 15:06, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Andreas Röhler<andreas.roehler@online.de>  writes:
>
>    
>> Am 09.08.2010 12:01, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>>      
>>> The main reason our lawyer gave when advising us to ask for copyright
>>> assignments is so that the copyright status of the program is simple.
>>> He said that would help us in court if we need to sue someone for
>>> violating the GPL.
>>>
>>> We can make an exception occasionally when it is very important
>>> but we should not make many exceptions.
>>>        
>> The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at
>> the contributors.
>>      
> No, it _takes_ the task of suing for compliance from the shoulders of
> the contributors.
>
>    

Freedom is not a tool to sue. That's a mistake.

>> Please consider: adversaires of free software will not ignore this,
>> will not miss the point.
>>      
> Adversaries of free software will notice when the legal position of the
> FSF is weak.  I have no idea what "point" you are trying to make.
>
>    
>> BTW we have a prominent example in Germany already, how a career and
>> social existence of an free softtware activist might be ruined.
>>
>> His name is Jörg Tauss. He was a member of the Parliament, the
>> Bundestag.  Inside Germany as in Europe Jörg Tauss took action against
>> software patents.
>>      
> The accusation is acquisition and possession of child pornography.  If
> you consider this in any way connected with copyright assignment
> policies, you are just crazy.  It may be loosely connected with freedom
> of information and privacy, but that's utterly, utterly unrelated to the
> topic of discussion.  So please get a grip and use, if at all, examples
> that have anything to do with the point you are trying to make.
>
>    

Defending free software means defending freedom of information also.

Jörg Taus did both.

The case of Jörg Tauss has been used to pervert
legislation. Until then Art. 19 of Universal
Declaration of Human Rights from December 10, 1948, was
respected et least in theory:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.

Shortly before Jörg Tauss was sentenced, legislation
was changed, making already of possession of
information, i.e. pictures of a crime, a crime itself.

Notably Jörg Tauss as Member of Parliament opposed that
new law before, tried to check himself whats behind the
child-porn-campaign. He felt fooled by services,
assumed getting wrong informations at the real issue
and purposes.  He was the speaker of his parliaments
group in just this IT-, freedom of information related
matters.

FSFE should know his name from Patent- and other FSF-related
matters very well.

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:

> Am 09.08.2010 15:06, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Andreas Röhler<andreas.roehler@online.de>  writes:
>>
>>    
>>> Am 09.08.2010 12:01, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>>>      
>>>> The main reason our lawyer gave when advising us to ask for copyright
>>>> assignments is so that the copyright status of the program is simple.
>>>> He said that would help us in court if we need to sue someone for
>>>> violating the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> We can make an exception occasionally when it is very important
>>>> but we should not make many exceptions.
>>>>        
>>> The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at
>>> the contributors.
>>>      
>> No, it _takes_ the task of suing for compliance from the shoulders of
>> the contributors.
>
> Freedom is not a tool to sue. That's a mistake.

If nobody is willing to defend freedom, it goes away.  That's the whole
point of the GPL and the fundamental reason of GNU.  Feel free to
disagree, but preaching the opposite in a GNU mailing list is about as
useful as trying to convince the Pope of preaching Islam.  His job
description is just incompatible.

>> The accusation is acquisition and possession of child pornography.
>> If you consider this in any way connected with copyright assignment
>> policies, you are just crazy.  It may be loosely connected with
>> freedom of information and privacy, but that's utterly, utterly
>> unrelated to the topic of discussion.  So please get a grip and use,
>> if at all, examples that have anything to do with the point you are
>> trying to make.
>
> Defending free software means defending freedom of information also.

Are you for legalizing credit card fraud and bank fraud?  Your bank
accounts are just information.  Why would not some person be allowed to
tamper with the information that constitutes your money?

> Jörg Taus did both.
>
> The case of Jörg Tauss has been used to pervert
> legislation. Until then Art. 19 of Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights from December 10, 1948, was
> respected et least in theory:
>
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
> expression; this right includes freedom to hold
> opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
> impart information and ideas through any media and
> regardless of frontiers.

But Tauss was not just informing himself about a machinery, he was
actively participating in it and feeding it.  That is not the same as
working for "freedom of information".

> Shortly before Jörg Tauss was sentenced, legislation
> was changed, making already of possession of
> information, i.e. pictures of a crime, a crime itself.

If the principal purpose of the crime is to create the "information" to
be passed around into people's possession for money and other
consideration, actively participating in a private network created for
the purpose of swapping this kind of material is keeping the crimes
going.

> Notably Jörg Tauss as Member of Parliament opposed that
> new law before, tried to check himself whats behind the
> child-porn-campaign. He felt fooled by services,
> assumed getting wrong informations at the real issue
> and purposes.  He was the speaker of his parliaments
> group in just this IT-, freedom of information related
> matters.

Apparently, he did not keep records on the level appropriate for an
investigation, but merely on the level needed for personal access.

It is fine to admire him for his stance in software patents, but that
does not make his legal problems any more on-topic here.

> FSFE should know his name from Patent- and other FSF-related
> matters very well.

Utterly meaningless for this discussion.  Focus.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 09.08.2010 18:16, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Andreas Röhler<andreas.roehler@online.de>  writes:
>
>    
>> Am 09.08.2010 15:06, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>      
>>> Andreas Röhler<andreas.roehler@online.de>   writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Am 09.08.2010 12:01, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> The main reason our lawyer gave when advising us to ask for copyright
>>>>> assignments is so that the copyright status of the program is simple.
>>>>> He said that would help us in court if we need to sue someone for
>>>>> violating the GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can make an exception occasionally when it is very important
>>>>> but we should not make many exceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at
>>>> the contributors.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> No, it _takes_ the task of suing for compliance from the shoulders of
>>> the contributors.
>>>        
>> Freedom is not a tool to sue. That's a mistake.
>>      
> If nobody is willing to defend freedom, it goes away.  That's the whole
> point of the GPL and the fundamental reason of GNU.  Feel free to
> disagree, but preaching the opposite in a GNU mailing list is about as
> useful as trying to convince the Pope of preaching Islam.  His job
> description is just incompatible.
>
>    
>>> The accusation is acquisition and possession of child pornography.
>>> If you consider this in any way connected with copyright assignment
>>> policies, you are just crazy.  It may be loosely connected with
>>> freedom of information and privacy, but that's utterly, utterly
>>> unrelated to the topic of discussion.  So please get a grip and use,
>>> if at all, examples that have anything to do with the point you are
>>> trying to make.
>>>        
>> Defending free software means defending freedom of information also.
>>      
> Are you for legalizing credit card fraud and bank fraud?  Your bank
> accounts are just information.

A possible crime may might be constituted with spreading information, 
not just possessing it.
Civilisation starts with the notion of difference between words and actions.

Words shall be free. No "hate speech" law may be part of culture, thats 
a barbarian style of politics.
Culture means freedom of speech, freedom of access to all kind of 
available info.

BTW in the mentioned time also laws have been passed here, making pure 
possession
of so called hacker tools a crime. Same play against basic rights.


>   Why would not some person be allowed to
> tamper with the information that constitutes your money?
>
>    
>> Jörg Taus did both.
>>
>> The case of Jörg Tauss has been used to pervert
>> legislation. Until then Art. 19 of Universal
>> Declaration of Human Rights from December 10, 1948, was
>> respected et least in theory:
>>
>> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
>> expression; this right includes freedom to hold
>> opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
>> impart information and ideas through any media and
>> regardless of frontiers.
>>      
> But Tauss was not just informing himself about a machinery, he was
> actively participating in it and feeding it.

Really? Don't believe that. He states different.
What the grants against persecution of a member of Parliament are worth, if
its allowed to search his home and computers?


>   That is not the same as
> working for "freedom of information".
>
>    
>> Shortly before Jörg Tauss was sentenced, legislation
>> was changed, making already of possession of
>> information, i.e. pictures of a crime, a crime itself.
>>      
> If the principal purpose of the crime is to create the "information" to
> be passed around into people's possession for money and other
> consideration, actively participating in a private network created for
> the purpose of swapping this kind of material is keeping the crimes
> going.
>
>    
>> Notably Jörg Tauss as Member of Parliament opposed that
>> new law before, tried to check himself whats behind the
>> child-porn-campaign. He felt fooled by services,
>> assumed getting wrong informations at the real issue
>> and purposes.  He was the speaker of his parliaments
>> group in just this IT-, freedom of information related
>> matters.
>>      
> Apparently, he did not keep records on the level appropriate for an
> investigation, but merely on the level needed for personal access.
>
> It is fine to admire him for his stance in software patents, but that
> does not make his legal problems any more on-topic here.
>
>    
>> FSFE should know his name from Patent- and other FSF-related
>> matters very well.
>>      
> Utterly meaningless for this discussion.  Focus.
>
>    

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:

> Am 09.08.2010 18:16, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> But Tauss was not just informing himself about a machinery, he was
>> actively participating in it and feeding it.
>
> Really? Don't believe that. He states different.

I recommend that you inform yourself better.

His own press declaration (so something which he prepared voluntarily
without time pressure and with the intent of giving his own view as a
public defense) in
<URL:http://www.welt.de/politik/article3359388/Tauss-Erklaerung-im-Wortlaut.html>
states:

    Es gibt heute nach meiner Erfahrung nur noch geschlossene
    Benutzergruppen und eine entsprechende Vorsicht. Sie kommen dem
    überhaupt auch nur nahe, wenn Sie szenetypisch auftreten und selbst
    „Material“, sozusagen als Eintrittskarte, anzubieten haben. „Ich
    schicke Dir und Du schickst mir - so sind wir beide
    „abgesichert“. Das begründet, warum ich das wenige selbst erhaltene
    kinderpornographische Material aufbewahrt habe.

He also paid money for that kind of material and thus kept the machinery
going:

    Da ich wenig für ihn interessantes Tauschmaterial hatte, wollte er
    einschlägiges Material nur gegen Zahlung von 100 € liefern. Ich
    zahlte und erhielt mehrere Datenträger,

[...]

    Daher zahlte ich weitere 100 Euro, um die in Aussicht gestellten
    Kontakte zu bekommen. Als weitere Informationen aber ausblieben und
    „Sascha“ plötzlich behauptete, von mir kein Geld bekommen zu haben,
    verfolgte ich den Kontakt nicht weiter.

All in all he keeps the incriminating material around because he
considers it necessary for the investigation which he claims he decided
to abort after a short duration.  And that is his own press release.

So I really recommend that you adjust your hero worship at least down to
the level of his own representation and words.  And most importantly,
take it elsewhere.  It has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do on the Emacs
developer list.  And discussions about the GPL and GNU policies are at
best marginally on-topic on this list, anyway, when we are talking about
the technical consequences and actual work of keeping Emacs in line with
the GNU maintenance policies.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 10.08.2010 09:50, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Andreas Röhler<andreas.roehler@online.de>  writes:
>
>    
>> Am 09.08.2010 18:16, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>      
>>> But Tauss was not just informing himself about a machinery, he was
>>> actively participating in it and feeding it.
>>>        
>> Really? Don't believe that. He states different.
>>      
> I recommend that you inform yourself better.
>
> His own press declaration (so something which he prepared voluntarily
> without time pressure and with the intent of giving his own view as a
> public defense) in
> <URL:http://www.welt.de/politik/article3359388/Tauss-Erklaerung-im-Wortlaut.html>
> states:
>
>      Es gibt heute nach meiner Erfahrung nur noch geschlossene
>      Benutzergruppen und eine entsprechende Vorsicht. Sie kommen dem
>      überhaupt auch nur nahe, wenn Sie szenetypisch auftreten und selbst
>      „Material“, sozusagen als Eintrittskarte, anzubieten haben. „Ich
>      schicke Dir und Du schickst mir - so sind wir beide
>      „abgesichert“. Das begründet, warum ich das wenige selbst erhaltene
>      kinderpornographische Material aufbewahrt habe.
>
> He also paid money for that kind of material and thus kept the machinery
> going:
>
>      Da ich wenig für ihn interessantes Tauschmaterial hatte, wollte er
>      einschlägiges Material nur gegen Zahlung von 100 € liefern. Ich
>      zahlte und erhielt mehrere Datenträger,
>
> [...]
>
>      Daher zahlte ich weitere 100 Euro, um die in Aussicht gestellten
>      Kontakte zu bekommen. Als weitere Informationen aber ausblieben und
>      „Sascha“ plötzlich behauptete, von mir kein Geld bekommen zu haben,
>      verfolgte ich den Kontakt nicht weiter.
>
> All in all he keeps the incriminating material around because he
> considers it necessary for the investigation which he claims he decided
> to abort after a short duration.  And that is his own press release.
>
>    

So far so right.
But were is the crime?

1th He just got the material  for its own knowledge. He didn't spread it.

2th He was in charge by his parliamentary group for just these matter, 
drafting/commenting a law designed to prevent the spread of childs-porn 
over the net.

If its not allowed to members of parliament to recherche in legal 
matters, which they are asked for consentment concerning new laws, where 
the proclaimed free access to information should start then?

Maybe read some more press-releases from Jörg Tauss commenting  its 
courts proceedings.
That may help understand, why we can't refer to courts defending free 
speech, resp. free software.



> So I really recommend that you adjust your hero worship at least down to
> the level of his own representation and words.  And most importantly,
> take it elsewhere.  It has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do on the Emacs
> developer list.  And discussions about the GPL and GNU policies are at
> best marginally on-topic on this list, anyway, when we are talking about
> the technical consequences and actual work of keeping Emacs in line with
> the GNU maintenance policies.
>
>    

Re: The copyright issue

[Fren Zeee]

>>
>> Freedom is not a tool to sue. That's a mistake.
>
> If nobody is willing to defend freedom, it goes away.  That's the whole
> point of the GPL and the fundamental reason of GNU.  Feel free to
> disagree, but preaching the opposite in a GNU mailing list is about as
> useful as trying to convince the Pope of preaching Islam.  His job
> description is just incompatible.
>

This is absolutely correct. If no one is willing to defend our rights
in general and freedom in particular, it will go away.

A David versus a Goliath is needed.

Re: The copyright issue

[Richard Stallman]

    The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at the 
    contributors.

I cannot tell what you are thinking, because you have
not stated it clearly.  But I think you have imagined
a nonexistent problem.

Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at the 
>     contributors.
>
> I cannot tell what you are thinking, because you have
> not stated it clearly.

I am not all too sure he has thought it clearly.  I seem to remember he
first started his "if you don't change your policies immediately,
everything is doomed" mantra here.  In order to escape certain doom, he
moved over to XEmacs and the respective developer lists.  After some
initial enthusiasm, he took to telling them that they needed to change
their policies immediately or have XEmacs doomed.  It would appear he is
back here again.  There are likely more productive ways to spend your
time than convincing him of anything.  Yes, I am really bad at following
my own advice.

Thanks for noticing.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: The copyright issue

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 10.08.2010 10:04, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Richard Stallman<rms@gnu.org>  writes:
>
>    
>>      The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at the
>>      contributors.
>>
>> I cannot tell what you are thinking, because you have
>> not stated it clearly.
>>      
> I am not all too sure he has thought it clearly.  I seem to remember he
> first started his "if you don't change your policies immediately,
> everything is doomed" mantra here.  In order to escape certain doom, he
> moved over to XEmacs and the respective developer lists.  After some
> initial enthusiasm, he took to telling them that they needed to change
> their policies immediately or have XEmacs doomed.  It would appear he is
> back here again.  There are likely more productive ways to spend your
> time than convincing him of anything.  Yes, I am really bad at following
> my own advice.
>
> Thanks for noticing.
>
>    

Don't mix up your head with mine.

Just pointed at a wrong decision IMHO. Would be glad, if it's me, who is 
wrong.