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: Compiled files without sources???? Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:14:24 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <874o215l5b.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87tya82mv5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ei1bzjwg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <4E3133CE.7010101@cs.ucla.edu> <4E31F0B3.3030505@cs.ucla.edu> <87mxfw90oo.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87r558ms8j.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87zkjv33w3.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87sjpn8if0.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87sjpm7lvt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <878vrepc6g.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87mxfunx4h.fsf@gnus.org> <877h6yp652.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <874o21pazd.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312204494 10493 80.91.229.12 (1 Aug 2011 13:14:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:14:54 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 01 15:14:48 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QnsKV-0007Ah-Tp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:14:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38163 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnsKV-0001xC-CD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:14:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:39501) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnsKS-0001x5-Qi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:14:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnsKR-0007I3-DY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:14:44 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:54776) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnsKR-0007Hs-1S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:14:43 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QnsKP-00079G-Va for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:14:41 +0200 Original-Received: from p508ec879.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.200.121]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:14:41 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p508ec879.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:14:41 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 48 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508ec879.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:OqwcLtWsOXTej62dQ7sCxTu21pE= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 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:142629 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Tim Cross writes: > > > I think it is far more likely the error was due to an honest error > > in understanding/interpretation of the licensing requirements > > rather than the somewhat malicious and deliberate interpretation > > you have suggested. > > No malice at all is implied, just a lack of due diligence. Obviously > there was an error in understanding the implications of the licensing > requirements for what Emacs *should* do (though Emacs is in no way > legally bound, of course). The FSF, being the principal copyright holder of Emacs, is not bound to the conditions of the GPL in a legal sense, but setting a bad example like that is not going to increase the respect from others. The FSF is bound to the conditions of the copyright assignment contracts from various contributors, however. While they are free to pick a number of free licensing arrangements for Emacs code not restricted to the GPL, they are not free to distribute generated code without source. People refusing to license under a GPLv$$+ scheme or assign their copyright to the FSF because either would be tantamount to a blank cheque and the FSF could turn bad, tend to forget that the FSF has entered into legally binding agreements as well. Even if the FSF became a subsidiary of the Gates foundation tomorrow, nothing really bad could happen to the software for which the FSF signed contracts. So "Emacs" (which is not a sentient entity yet) is certainly not just morally, but also legally bound to providing corresponding source code to its binaries. > Deliberate, yes. In http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/115057 > Chong Yidong writes: "I think it's better for us to merge just the > generated Lisp grammar files, leaving the grammar development for > upstream. It's an awful lot of infrastructure to pull in...." IMO, > "just the generated files" should be a red flag for any maintainer > working with copyleft licensing. Well, you have the advantage of long years of training looking for such pitfalls as project/release manager of XEmacs. Emacs has had less reason or opportunity to try staying under the radar and/or out of reach of Richard. Perhaps you should offer courses. -- David Kastrup