License Notice for ELPA packages

License Notice for ELPA packages

[Arash Esbati]

Hi all,

I'm about to update the license notice header for files distributed with
AUCTeX and wanted to ask if there is a preferred one for ELPA package.
I've seen several versions compared to this[1]:

• vertico.el says it is part of GNU Emacs, and then uses the license for
  small programs[2].

• pulsar.el says it is NOT part of GNU Emacs with the part for small
  programs[3].

• svg-lib.el is also NOT part of GNU Emacs, but uses a diffent last
  paragraph than in [1,4].

• pinentry.el says it is part of GNU Emacs, talks also about GNU Emacs
  in other places as well[5].

Where to go?

Best, Arash

Footnotes:
[1]  https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Code.html
[2]  https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/tree/vertico.el?h=externals/vertico
[3]  https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/tree/pulsar.el?h=externals/pulsar
[4]  https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/tree/svg-lib.el?h=externals/svg-lib
[5]  https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/tree/pinentry.el?h=externals/pinentry

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Emanuel Berg]

Arash Esbati wrote:

> I'm about to update the license notice header for files
> distributed with AUCTeX and wanted to ask if there is
> a preferred one for ELPA package. I've seen several versions
> compared to this[1]:
>
> • vertico.el says it is part of GNU Emacs, and then uses the
>   license for small programs[2].
>
> • pulsar.el says it is NOT part of GNU Emacs with the part
>   for small programs[3].
>
> • svg-lib.el is also NOT part of GNU Emacs, but uses
>   a diffent last paragraph than in [1,4].
>
> • pinentry.el says it is part of GNU Emacs, talks also about
>   GNU Emacs in other places as well[5].
>
> Where to go?

Where I would go?

I would write a program to do it, and if I changed my mind
later, I would change the program and have it do it all over.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Arash Esbati <arash@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2024 21:41:40 +0200
> 
> I'm about to update the license notice header for files distributed with
> AUCTeX and wanted to ask if there is a preferred one for ELPA package.
> I've seen several versions compared to this[1]:
> 
> • vertico.el says it is part of GNU Emacs, and then uses the license for
>   small programs[2].
> 
> • pulsar.el says it is NOT part of GNU Emacs with the part for small
>   programs[3].
> 
> • svg-lib.el is also NOT part of GNU Emacs, but uses a diffent last
>   paragraph than in [1,4].
> 
> • pinentry.el says it is part of GNU Emacs, talks also about GNU Emacs
>   in other places as well[5].
> 
> Where to go?

Stefan and Philip, what are our policies in this regard?

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Philip Kaludercic]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Arash Esbati <arash@gnu.org>
>> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2024 21:41:40 +0200
>> 
>> I'm about to update the license notice header for files distributed with
>> AUCTeX and wanted to ask if there is a preferred one for ELPA package.
>> I've seen several versions compared to this[1]:
>> 
>> • vertico.el says it is part of GNU Emacs, and then uses the license for
>>   small programs[2].
>> 
>> • pulsar.el says it is NOT part of GNU Emacs with the part for small
>>   programs[3].
>> 
>> • svg-lib.el is also NOT part of GNU Emacs, but uses a diffent last
>>   paragraph than in [1,4].
>> 
>> • pinentry.el says it is part of GNU Emacs, talks also about GNU Emacs
>>   in other places as well[5].
>> 
>> Where to go?
>
> Stefan and Philip, what are our policies in this regard?

As ELPA packages are regarded to be part of Emacs (and distributed under
the same license), the comment should say "is part of GNU Emacs".

By grepping through the ELPA packages, I notice a lot (most? all?)
packages by Protesilaos and Jose (both in the CCs) have the wrong
comment.  I hope they can fix that.  For the other packages I'd have to
check if they are maintained in elpa.git or not, and then contact the
maintainers accordingly.

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on siskin

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Protesilaos Stavrou]

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> Date: Sat,  7 Sep 2024 10:47:27 +0000

> [... 24 lines elided]

>> Stefan and Philip, what are our policies in this regard?
>
> As ELPA packages are regarded to be part of Emacs (and distributed under
> the same license), the comment should say "is part of GNU Emacs".
>
> By grepping through the ELPA packages, I notice a lot (most? all?)
> packages by Protesilaos and Jose (both in the CCs) have the wrong
> comment.  I hope they can fix that.  For the other packages I'd have to
> check if they are maintained in elpa.git or not, and then contact the
> maintainers accordingly.

Thanks for the reminder! I will do it as soon as possible. Though note
that the changes may take a while to trickle down in some cases as I
have to write change logs first.

-- 
Protesilaos Stavrou
https://protesilaos.com

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Arash Esbati]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> For the other packages I'd have to check if they are maintained in
> elpa.git or not, and then contact the maintainers accordingly.

Thanks for the clarification, Philip.  For AUCTeX, we can fix this right
away; you say that the relevant AUCTeX files should have:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
;; This file is part of GNU Emacs.

;; GNU Emacs is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
;; under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
;; Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) any
;; later version.

;; GNU Emacs is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
;; WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
;; General Public License for more details.

;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
;; along with GNU Emacs.  If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Right?  If so, I will make this change ASAP.

Best, Arash

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Philip Kaludercic]

I am not sure about the middle two paragraphs are necessary (IANAL, etc.), but they certainly do no harm.

On September 7, 2024 3:07:24 PM GMT+02:00, Arash Esbati <arash@gnu.org> wrote:
>Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> For the other packages I'd have to check if they are maintained in
>> elpa.git or not, and then contact the maintainers accordingly.
>
>Thanks for the clarification, Philip.  For AUCTeX, we can fix this right
>away; you say that the relevant AUCTeX files should have:
>
>--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>;; This file is part of GNU Emacs.
>
>;; GNU Emacs is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>;; under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
>;; Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) any
>;; later version.
>
>;; GNU Emacs is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
>;; WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
>;; General Public License for more details.
>
>;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>;; along with GNU Emacs.  If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
>Right?  If so, I will make this change ASAP.
>
>Best, Arash

-- 
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity and bad formatting.

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Stefan Monnier]

> As ELPA packages are regarded to be part of Emacs (and distributed under
> the same license), the comment should say "is part of GNU Emacs".

I don't think it's that clear.
It is considered as part of GNU Emacs in the sense that copyright
assignments that cover Emacs also cover these files, but it is not
considered as part of the GNU Emacs in the sense that it's not
(currently) included in the distributed tarball.

So historically we have accepted both "is part of GNU Emacs" and "is NOT
part of GNU Emacs".  IMO the better choice is to say neither.


        Stefan

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  Arash Esbati <arash@gnu.org>,
>   emacs-devel@gnu.org,  Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>,
>   "Protesilaos Stavrou" <info@protesilaos.com>,  Jose E. Marchesi
>  <jemarch@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 17:11:23 -0400
> 
> > As ELPA packages are regarded to be part of Emacs (and distributed under
> > the same license), the comment should say "is part of GNU Emacs".
> 
> I don't think it's that clear.
> It is considered as part of GNU Emacs in the sense that copyright
> assignments that cover Emacs also cover these files, but it is not
> considered as part of the GNU Emacs in the sense that it's not
> (currently) included in the distributed tarball.
> 
> So historically we have accepted both "is part of GNU Emacs" and "is NOT
> part of GNU Emacs".  IMO the better choice is to say neither.

Some ELPA packages are also part of Emacs, so I guess they should say
"is part of GNU Emacs"?

Also, what will we do when we devise a way to bundle ELPA packages
with Emacs release tarballs? rewrite the notice?  Something to keep in
mind for the future, I guess.

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Stefan Monnier]

> Some ELPA packages are also part of Emacs, so I guess they should say
> "is part of GNU Emacs"?

Yes.

> Also, what will we do when we devise a way to bundle ELPA packages
> with Emacs release tarballs? rewrite the notice?  Something to keep in
> mind for the future, I guess.

[ At the rate this is going, we not have to worry about it :-(  ]


        Stefan

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Arash Esbati]

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

> So historically we have accepted both "is part of GNU Emacs" and "is NOT
> part of GNU Emacs".  IMO the better choice is to say neither.

Thanks for your response.  I installed this notice for AUCTeX files:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
;; This file is part of AUCTeX.

;; AUCTeX is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
;; under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
;; Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) any
;; later version.

;; AUCTeX is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
;; ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
;; FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License
;; for more details.

;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
;; along with GNU Emacs.  If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Best, Arash

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Philip Kaludercic]

Arash Esbati <arash@gnu.org> writes:

> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>
>> So historically we have accepted both "is part of GNU Emacs" and "is NOT
>> part of GNU Emacs".  IMO the better choice is to say neither.
>
> Thanks for your response.  I installed this notice for AUCTeX files:
>
> ;; This file is part of AUCTeX.

While not wrong, I believe that this might confuse people in the future,
just like you were confused about the different instances of "is part"
and "is NOT part" found in different packages.  Some might interpret
this as "what if any is the closest GNU project the file belongs to?".

> ;; AUCTeX is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> ;; under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
> ;; Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) any
> ;; later version.
>
> ;; AUCTeX is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
> ;; ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
> ;; FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License
> ;; for more details.
>
> ;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> ;; along with GNU Emacs.  If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>
> Best, Arash
>
>

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on siskin

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> So historically we have accepted both "is part of GNU Emacs" and "is NOT
>>> part of GNU Emacs".  IMO the better choice is to say neither.
>> Thanks for your response.  I installed this notice for AUCTeX files:
>> ;; This file is part of AUCTeX.
> While not wrong, I believe that this might confuse people in the future,
> just like you were confused about the different instances of "is part"
> and "is NOT part" found in different packages.  Some might interpret
> this as "what if any is the closest GNU project the file belongs to?".

I don't understand: why would they restrict themselves to "GNU projects"?


        Stefan

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Philip Kaludercic]

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

>>>> So historically we have accepted both "is part of GNU Emacs" and "is NOT
>>>> part of GNU Emacs".  IMO the better choice is to say neither.
>>> Thanks for your response.  I installed this notice for AUCTeX files:
>>> ;; This file is part of AUCTeX.
>> While not wrong, I believe that this might confuse people in the future,
>> just like you were confused about the different instances of "is part"
>> and "is NOT part" found in different packages.  Some might interpret
>> this as "what if any is the closest GNU project the file belongs to?".
>
> I don't understand: why would they restrict themselves to "GNU projects"?

Just because Emacs and AucTeX are both GNU projects, IIRC.  I am not
saying this would be a valid inference, but if someone just observes a
number of packages and all they find is

  ;; This file is {,NOT} part of [some GNU package]

as a pattern, then I wouldn't blame them for making that assumption. 

>
>         Stefan

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on siskin

Re: License Notice for ELPA packages

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> As ELPA packages are regarded to be part of Emacs (and
>> distributed under the same license), the comment should say
>> "is part of GNU Emacs".
>
> I don't think it's that clear. It is considered as part of
> GNU Emacs in the sense that copyright assignments that cover
> Emacs also cover these files, but it is not considered as
> part of the GNU Emacs in the sense that it's not (currently)
> included in the distributed tarball.

I always read it as "part of GNU Emacs, for practical reasons
distributed with GNU ELPA."

Does it mean something else, or something else as well?

I think a lot of stuff in Emacs core should, also for
practical reasons, be converted into GNU ELPA packages.

Especially big ones that aren't used by everyone, necessarily.
Gnus is the obvious example, then one would continue down
the ladder.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal