From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Yoni Rabkin Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Function for quoting Emacs manual sections? Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:58:23 -0500 Message-ID: <8739pt5vkg.fsf@rabkins.net> References: <877hf6p3fo.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87y67lopu6.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87d3oxog5r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1292792347 18249 80.91.229.12 (19 Dec 2010 20:59:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:59:07 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 19 21:59:03 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PUQLN-0001sv-GK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:59:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49565 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PUQLM-0003V2-PU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:59:00 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43428 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PUQLI-0003Uu-6f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:58:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PUQLH-00041i-1t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:58:56 -0500 Original-Received: from p3plsmtpa01-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([72.167.82.84]:37915) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PUQLG-00041I-Of for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:58:54 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 2795 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2010 20:58:51 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (24.128.161.21) by p3plsmtpa01-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.84) with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2010 20:58:50 -0000 X-Ethics: Use GNU In-Reply-To: <87d3oxog5r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:56:16 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:133820 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Stefan Monnier writes: > >>>> Maybe I'm missing something, but I see no part in GFDL that speaks >>>> specifically about such email quotations. >> >> Isn't that covered by the copyright law already? > > Sure. Namely it is forbidden by default. You can't quote any creative > content that would suffice for not needing to get access the original. > Because then you are providing value only the copyright holder is > permitted to provide. (I'm not a lawyer and I don't represent the FSF but I have been volunteering at the GPL Compliance Lab for the past 5 years, so I have a bit of experience with these things) We can't answer the general question of "what is considered a derivative work" because it is too vague. Someone who really wants an answer takes a specific case to a copyright lawyer and continues from there. But in these cases we don't need a specific answer. Emacs' documentation is the copyright of the FSF (and therefore only they are legally empowered to enforce the terms of the license for the work) and I seriously doubt that they will decide to act against David, or anyone else, who quotes their manuals in a good faith effort to teach people about free software. If the community recognizes a bad actor somewhere taking advantage of this then that issue should be taken care of individually. So David may be right, and his attitude toward taking the license seriously is commendable, but in this case I can't see it as a problem. That said: the fact that there is this uncertainty, enough to make David doubt his good work in the first place, shouldn't be ignored. We can ask for a clarification. One way to do this would be to open a ticket with licensing@gnu.org and let Brett Smith and the volunteers deal with it (warning: it may take an unlimited amount of time to get around to). David can open this ticket by emailing the GPL Compliance Lab, but I would be happy to do it myself. -- "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"