From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 17:21:10 +0100 Message-ID: <871tyko9l5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <834n41db0d.fsf@gnu.org> <52FE2985.4070703@yandex.ru> <831tz5daes.fsf@gnu.org> <8738jlohd6.fsf@yandex.ru> <83txc1bl83.fsf@gnu.org> <5300189A.9090208@yandex.ru> <83wqgv9fbj.fsf@gnu.org> <20140216180712.236069f6@forcix.jorgenschaefer.de> <83sirj9cyp.fsf@gnu.org> <20140217203145.71a849f7@forcix.jorgenschaefer.de> <837g8t8ouc.fsf@gnu.org> <20140219080524.25689b6b@forcix.jorgenschaefer.de> <83k3cr58o2.fsf@gnu.org> <530BAEE5.9040004@online.de> <87ppmatkpe.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wqgfsxsr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wqgf37n4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ha7gshu9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393777282 30745 80.91.229.3 (2 Mar 2014 16:21:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 16:21:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 02 17:21:31 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WK98s-0005ki-4l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 17:21:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35946 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WK98r-0004a4-Hf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:21:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48142) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WK98o-0004Y5-Ew for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:21:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WK98n-000220-H4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:21:26 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55210) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WK98n-00021u-DM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:21:25 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34153 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WK98m-0005ij-2o; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:21:24 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E74FAE9C2D; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:21:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87ha7gshu9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (Stephen J. Turnbull's message of "Mon, 03 Mar 2014 01:09:18 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:170051 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > > > > However, this situation is easily enough changed. The useful programs > > > from the LLVM project can be forked (AFAIK their license is not > > > perversely incompatible with the GPL) as GNU projects under the "GPL > > > v3 or later" permission schema. > > > > > > Would you object to that? > > > > I'd object, for basically practical reasons. You can fork code, but you > > cannot fork a community. > > True. > > > A fork of the LLVM codebase under the GPLv3 makes only sense if you > > actually add nontrivial nonseparable components under the GPLv3 or > > the code base can be just swapped out. > > Not at all. This could merely be a distribution fork, like the > Ghostscript dual license scheme, or the various foobar+gnureadline > distributions of individual programs that appeared over the years, or > like some of the various commercial versions of BSD and X11 and TeX > that have appeared over the years. > > And of course the code base can just be swapped out. The point is > simply to make the public point that *this* distribution is copyleft, > and *that one* isn't. "Defend" their free software for them, as it > were. But you can't. There is no point in slapping a license on a distribution when you don't have standing to sue over license breaches since you are not holding copyright to any significant part of it. It only weakens the GPL if you start creating situations where it cannot be taken seriously and/or enforced. > OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice ... doesn't that undermine your point? > Apache 2.0 is compatible with GNU GPL 3.0. I would suppose it's > compatible with LGPL 3.0, since LGPL 3 is GPL 3. Sure, I suppose the > folks at Apache would be a little miffed at the one-way flow of code, > but they did it to themselves (at fairly high cost of redundant > development, too). If you take a look at R.C.Weir venting off in the comment section of basically every publication delivering a LibreOffice release announcement, that "a little miffed" is not a mere hypothetical. -- David Kastrup