Org-mode exporters licensing

Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

Hi all,

I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters.  To this end,
I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter.  Rather
obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex),
which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in
particular).  I'd like to put my code in public domain.  However,
I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but
still).  Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or
something?

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Rasmus]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but
> still).  Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or
> something?

My guess would be no.  You should ask the FSF lawyers.

Rasmus

-- 
What will be next?

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 10:16, Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
>
>> I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but
>> still).  Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or
>> something?
>
> My guess would be no.  You should ask the FSF lawyers.

You mean like no, it's not fine, or no, they won't come and get me? ;-)

BTW, I'm not really afraid of EFF lawyers.  I just don't want to do
something with the EFF's "owned" code which EFF wouldn't like, even
though I'm not a fan of either EFF or the copyright law in general.
(BTW, AFAIK in my country it is technically impossible to put a work
into public domain anyway.  Or more precisely, there is a way: you just
die and wait fifty years or something.  Frankly speaking, I don't care
too much about how this law works.  Last time I talked to someone (one
of the professors at my faculty) about copyright law, he expressed his
opinion about the need of shooting all lawyers.  I tend to disagree with
him less and less over time. ;-) )

> Rasmus

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Rasmus]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> On 2015-07-27, at 10:16, Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> wrote:
>
>> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
>>
>>> I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but
>>> still).  Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or
>>> something?
>>
>> My guess would be no.  You should ask the FSF lawyers.
>
> You mean like no, it's not fine, or no, they won't come and get me? ;-)

I think you cannot share your code unless your release your example
backend under GPL3+.  You can presumably release the code backend under
GPL and text under whatever.  But, really, you should ask the FSF lawyers
about this.

> BTW, I'm not really afraid of EFF lawyers.

EFF is the privacy organization.  Do you mean FSF?

-- 
Bang bang

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 10:35, Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
>
>> On 2015-07-27, at 10:16, Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
>>>
>>>> I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but
>>>> still).  Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or
>>>> something?
>>>
>>> My guess would be no.  You should ask the FSF lawyers.
>>
>> You mean like no, it's not fine, or no, they won't come and get me? ;-)
>
> I think you cannot share your code unless your release your example
> backend under GPL3+.  You can presumably release the code backend under
> GPL and text under whatever.  But, really, you should ask the FSF lawyers
> about this.

Assuming they would understand my question...

Frankly speaking, I'm rather astonished at your and Eric's answers.
I treated my question as a formality, and expected answers like "Of
course you can do it, don't be silly."  I guess I should have published
it without asking...  That's probably what I'm going to do in the future
in similar cases.

>> BTW, I'm not really afraid of EFF lawyers.
>
> EFF is the privacy organization.  Do you mean FSF?

Yes, of course, sorry.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Eric S Fraga]

On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 11:05, Marcin Borkowski wrote:

[...]

> Frankly speaking, I'm rather astonished at your and Eric's answers.
> I treated my question as a formality, and expected answers like "Of
> course you can do it, don't be silly."

Oh, sorry!  I thought you actually did want to get some feedback on
this.  I'm not bothered at all what you do with your code ;-).

Some of us, for better or for worse, have lived through the whole
development of "open source", "free software", "public domain".  I
release my first software as "pd" back in the late 70s!  Back then, the
main worry was about implied warranties and not software
freedom.  Different world...

And, by the way, copyright and licensing are two completely different
issues (in response to an earlier email of yours in this thread)...

To borrow a phrase: publish and be damned! [1]  :-)

cheers,
eric

Footnotes: 
[1]  http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/14599.html

-- 
: Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 11:46, Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 11:05, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Frankly speaking, I'm rather astonished at your and Eric's answers.
>> I treated my question as a formality, and expected answers like "Of
>> course you can do it, don't be silly."
>
> Oh, sorry!  I thought you actually did want to get some feedback on
> this.  I'm not bothered at all what you do with your code ;-).

;-)

Well, I did want that.  I just didn't expect this...

> Some of us, for better or for worse, have lived through the whole
> development of "open source", "free software", "public domain".  I
> release my first software as "pd" back in the late 70s!  Back then, the
> main worry was about implied warranties and not software
> freedom.  Different world...

I guess.

> And, by the way, copyright and licensing are two completely different
> issues (in response to an earlier email of yours in this thread)...

True.  I should have said (probably) "intellectual property law".
Notice how the very name contains a lie: there is no such thing as
"intellectual property", since "intellectual" things are not material
and thus cannot be a "property" at all.

And now I have another question, but I'll put in in a separate thread,
I guess.

> cheers,
> eric

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Eric S Fraga]

On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 10:06, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters.  To this end,
> I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter.  Rather
> obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex),
> which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in
> particular).  I'd like to put my code in public domain.  However,
> I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but
> still).  Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or
> something?

If you reuse GPL code, you have to distribute your code under GPL as
well basically.  From the COPYING file in the org distribution:

    [...]

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
    gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
    freedoms that you received.  You must make sure that they, too,
    receive or can get the source code.  And you must show them these
    terms so they know their rights.

    Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
    (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
    giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

    [...]

Oh, and it's FSF lawyers you should worry about, not EFF!  Two different
organisations albeit with some overlap in goals.

HTH,
eric
-- 
: Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 10:42, Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 10:06, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters.  To this end,
>> I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter.  Rather
>> obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex),
>> which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in
>> particular).  I'd like to put my code in public domain.  However,
>> I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but
>> still).  Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or
>> something?
>
> If you reuse GPL code, you have to distribute your code under GPL as
> well basically.  From the COPYING file in the org distribution:

See how stupid this whole copyright law swamp is?

What if I reuse just the basic structure of sentences in the docstrings,
like in "Subject + verb + preposition + object"?  Do I have to use GPL
then, too? ;-)

And what if I reuse the naming convention of the functions, but to make
life easier, I'll just copy large fragments of code and do
a query-replace on them?  (This is serious.)

>     For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
>     gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
>     freedoms that you received.  You must make sure that they, too,
>     receive or can get the source code.  And you must show them these
>     terms so they know their rights.
>
>     Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
>     (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
>     giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

I know that.  My question is more like "what does it mean to `reuse'
code/text".

> Oh, and it's FSF lawyers you should worry about, not EFF!  Two different
> organisations albeit with some overlap in goals.

My bad, of course I meant FSF.

> HTH,
> eric


-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Eric S Fraga]

On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 10:59, Marcin Borkowski wrote:

[...]

> See how stupid this whole copyright law swamp is?
>
> What if I reuse just the basic structure of sentences in the docstrings,
> like in "Subject + verb + preposition + object"?  Do I have to use GPL
> then, too? ;-)
>
> And what if I reuse the naming convention of the functions, but to make
> life easier, I'll just copy large fragments of code and do
> a query-replace on them?  (This is serious.)

Yes, this whole issue can be quite messy.  The GPL is somewhat viral in
nature and was (probably, arguably) intended to be so.  Laudable goals
but sometimes overbearing but let's no go there...

My view would be that if you use any of org code and you want to release
that code to the outside world, you will need to license the result
under GPL.  Given your intent to make your code public domain, this is
not a bad way to go in any case.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 11:31, Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 10:59, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> See how stupid this whole copyright law swamp is?
>>
>> What if I reuse just the basic structure of sentences in the docstrings,
>> like in "Subject + verb + preposition + object"?  Do I have to use GPL
>> then, too? ;-)
>>
>> And what if I reuse the naming convention of the functions, but to make
>> life easier, I'll just copy large fragments of code and do
>> a query-replace on them?  (This is serious.)
>
> Yes, this whole issue can be quite messy.  The GPL is somewhat viral in
> nature and was (probably, arguably) intended to be so.  Laudable goals
> but sometimes overbearing but let's no go there...

Yes, it's not the discussion I'd like to get into now.

> My view would be that if you use any of org code and you want to release
> that code to the outside world, you will need to license the result
> under GPL.  Given your intent to make your code public domain, this is
> not a bad way to go in any case.

I disagree.  Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do.
A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even
copy).  Such things should definitely be in PD.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Daniele Nicolodi]

On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> I disagree.  Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do.
> A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even
> copy).  Such things should definitely be in PD.

As yourself pointed out in one of your emails, in many legal
ordinations, there is no such concept as public domain: you cannot
renounce to the copyright on your intellectual production.

Therefore licensing something as public domain is not quite possible. If
you want to grant the users of your code the most freedom (but do not
care about this freedom being carried over to others) the 3-Clause BSD
license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause, the 2-Clause BSD
license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause, or the MIT license
http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html are good candidate
licenses formulated in the framework of copyright law as accepted
internationally.

However, you cannot derive your work from some other work distributed
under GPL and license it with a more permissive license (as the ones
suggested above). What constituted a derived work is however not
scientifically defined (and you have been rather terse in describing how
your work build upon code released under the GPLv3). In one place you
explicitly mention running a query-replace on the source code:
mechanical transformations of the source code are considered derived
works, even if the end result does not resemble at all the original.

I would suggest you to do derive your work from the GPL code and then
consult with the authors about its licensing. If you are only using the
GPL code as a skeleton, I think they would not have objections (but you
could also easily re-implement it from scratch).

Other than this I would recommend you to refrain from harsh comments on
a matter on which you hold strong ideas but weak knowledge (as most of
this thread demonstrates). Especially if your positions seem detrimental
of the Copyleft model, and you are asking for help in a mailing-list
devoted to a very successful Copyleft program.

Cheers,
Daniele

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Greg Troxel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1423 bytes --]


Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> writes:

> On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>> I disagree.  Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do.
>> A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even
>> copy).  Such things should definitely be in PD.

[many excellent comments.   As a nit, to reuse another's work under the
GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you
need their affirmative permission.   And if much of org is assigned to
the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission.  That's a
use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.]

Indeed.  A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing
in a project in is more than a legal matter.  The license terms are a
declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people
contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed.

In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the
recipients receive rights to further share (and more).  In other words,
not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are
distributed) will also be Free Software.  With a BSD-style license, or
PD, derived works may or may not be Free.

Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted
code and have it be PD.   And as Daniele points out, new works being PD
only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0).



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 180 bytes --]

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Daniele Nicolodi]

On 27/07/15 14:42, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> writes:
> 
>> On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>>> I disagree.  Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do.
>>> A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even
>>> copy).  Such things should definitely be in PD.
> 
> [many excellent comments.   As a nit, to reuse another's work under the
> GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you
> need their affirmative permission.   And if much of org is assigned to
> the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission.  That's a
> use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.]
> 
> Indeed.  A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing
> in a project in is more than a legal matter.  The license terms are a
> declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people
> contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed.
> 
> In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the
> recipients receive rights to further share (and more).  In other words,
> not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are
> distributed) will also be Free Software.  With a BSD-style license, or
> PD, derived works may or may not be Free.
> 
> Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted
> code and have it be PD.   And as Daniele points out, new works being PD
> only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0).

Very good points!

I really like the "declaration of intent" pint of view.

Cheers,
Daniele

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 14:52, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> wrote:

> On 27/07/15 14:42, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> 
>> Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> writes:
>> 
>>> On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>>>> I disagree.  Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do.
>>>> A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even
>>>> copy).  Such things should definitely be in PD.
>> 
>> [many excellent comments.   As a nit, to reuse another's work under the
>> GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you
>> need their affirmative permission.   And if much of org is assigned to
>> the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission.  That's a
>> use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.]
>> 
>> Indeed.  A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing
>> in a project in is more than a legal matter.  The license terms are a
>> declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people
>> contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed.
>> 
>> In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the
>> recipients receive rights to further share (and more).  In other words,
>> not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are
>> distributed) will also be Free Software.  With a BSD-style license, or
>> PD, derived works may or may not be Free.
>> 
>> Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted
>> code and have it be PD.   And as Daniele points out, new works being PD
>> only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0).
>
> Very good points!

Indeed!

> I really like the "declaration of intent" pint of view.

And I do not.  I suspect that many authors don't care, and use GPL (or
BSD, or other license) just so that they don't have to write a license
themselves.  Of course, this is only my suspicion, and I might be
totally wrong.

> Cheers,
> Daniele

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> And I do not.  I suspect that many authors don't care, and use GPL (or
> BSD, or other license) just so that they don't have to write a license
> themselves.  Of course, this is only my suspicion, and I might be
> totally wrong.

As a data point, in order to clear any ambiguity, I _do_ care about the
GNU project, and, as a consequence, about the licensing.

Of course, this doesn't invalidate your suspicion.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 14:42, Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:

> Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> writes:
>
>> On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>>> I disagree.  Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do.
>>> A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even
>>> copy).  Such things should definitely be in PD.
>
> [many excellent comments.   As a nit, to reuse another's work under the
> GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you
> need their affirmative permission.   And if much of org is assigned to
> the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission.  That's a
> use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.]
>
> Indeed.  A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing
> in a project in is more than a legal matter.  The license terms are a
> declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people
> contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed.

I'm not "unaware", I just don't believe it.

> In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the
> recipients receive rights to further share (and more).  In other words,
> not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are
> distributed) will also be Free Software.  With a BSD-style license, or
> PD, derived works may or may not be Free.

That I do understand, my problem is "what is derived work".

> Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted
> code and have it be PD.   And as Daniele points out, new works being PD
> only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0).

Yes.

Thanks

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 14:17, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> wrote:

> On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>> I disagree.  Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do.
>> A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even
>> copy).  Such things should definitely be in PD.
>
> As yourself pointed out in one of your emails, in many legal
> ordinations, there is no such concept as public domain: you cannot
> renounce to the copyright on your intellectual production.

That I've already learned.  OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be
that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in.  (Mind
you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that.  But this system
is almost unbearable.)

> Therefore licensing something as public domain is not quite possible. If
> you want to grant the users of your code the most freedom (but do not
> care about this freedom being carried over to others) the 3-Clause BSD
> license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause, the 2-Clause BSD
> license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause, or the MIT license
> http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html are good candidate
> licenses formulated in the framework of copyright law as accepted
> internationally.

Thanks for the suggestions!

> However, you cannot derive your work from some other work distributed
> under GPL and license it with a more permissive license (as the ones
> suggested above). What constituted a derived work is however not
> scientifically defined (and you have been rather terse in describing how
> your work build upon code released under the GPLv3). In one place you
> explicitly mention running a query-replace on the source code:
> mechanical transformations of the source code are considered derived
> works, even if the end result does not resemble at all the original.

I agree that I was probably too concise.  In another post I included an
explicit example of what kind of "transformations" (mechanical or
otherwise) I had in mind.  I still personally find hard to believe that
what I have in mind would consitute "derived work".

> I would suggest you to do derive your work from the GPL code and then
> consult with the authors about its licensing. If you are only using the
> GPL code as a skeleton, I think they would not have objections (but you
> could also easily re-implement it from scratch).

This seems wise.  I'm not sure whether I would re-implement it "easily",
especially that I see no point in deliberately not looking at existing
code.  (Besides, I saw it anyway, and I can't unsee it;-).)

> Other than this I would recommend you to refrain from harsh comments on
> a matter on which you hold strong ideas but weak knowledge (as most of
> this thread demonstrates). Especially if your positions seem detrimental
> of the Copyleft model, and you are asking for help in a mailing-list
> devoted to a very successful Copyleft program.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, my knowledge is less and less weak, also
thanks to your explanations.  OTOH, the more I know about these issues,
the more I dislike the status quo, and the more harsh my opinions about
GPL in particular are.  (It is not a secret that I am very critical of
the GPL and of the FSF.  Still, as I said before, I'm very hesitant
about explicitly breaking their rules.)

> Cheers,
> Daniele

Thanks again,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Daniele Nicolodi]

On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> That I've already learned.  OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be
> that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in.  (Mind
> you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that.  But this system
> is almost unbearable.)

This statement confirms that you do not really understand what you are
talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights, you cannot place
something in the public domain. If you do not release your work with an
explicit license, the default copyright protection law applies and this
means (in all jurisdictions I know about) that you reserve all rights to
yourself: none can use your code, and probably not even look at it.

>> Other than this I would recommend you to refrain from harsh comments on
>> a matter on which you hold strong ideas but weak knowledge (as most of
>> this thread demonstrates). Especially if your positions seem detrimental
>> of the Copyleft model, and you are asking for help in a mailing-list
>> devoted to a very successful Copyleft program.
> 
> Well, as I mentioned earlier, my knowledge is less and less weak, also
> thanks to your explanations.  OTOH, the more I know about these issues,
> the more I dislike the status quo, and the more harsh my opinions about
> GPL in particular are.  (It is not a secret that I am very critical of
> the GPL and of the FSF.  Still, as I said before, I'm very hesitant
> about explicitly breaking their rules.)

You are free to think whatever you want. However, using software
released under the GPL (and profiting of the freedom that the GPL
guarantees you) is not very coherent with your position.

Cheers,
Daniele

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 20:02, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> wrote:

> On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>> That I've already learned.  OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be
>> that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in.  (Mind
>> you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that.  But this system
>> is almost unbearable.)
>
> This statement confirms that you do not really understand what you are
> talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights, you cannot place
> something in the public domain. If you do not release your work with an
> explicit license, the default copyright protection law applies and this
> means (in all jurisdictions I know about) that you reserve all rights to
> yourself: none can use your code, and probably not even look at it.

I do understand (at least I think so).  And I do understand that my
declaration of putting something in PD would be technically void.
I just don't care about it, if the declaration of intent is clear.

>>> Other than this I would recommend you to refrain from harsh comments on
>>> a matter on which you hold strong ideas but weak knowledge (as most of
>>> this thread demonstrates). Especially if your positions seem detrimental
>>> of the Copyleft model, and you are asking for help in a mailing-list
>>> devoted to a very successful Copyleft program.
>> 
>> Well, as I mentioned earlier, my knowledge is less and less weak, also
>> thanks to your explanations.  OTOH, the more I know about these issues,
>> the more I dislike the status quo, and the more harsh my opinions about
>> GPL in particular are.  (It is not a secret that I am very critical of
>> the GPL and of the FSF.  Still, as I said before, I'm very hesitant
>> about explicitly breaking their rules.)
>
> You are free to think whatever you want. However, using software
> released under the GPL (and profiting of the freedom that the GPL
> guarantees you) is not very coherent with your position.

I don't think that the terms of GPL depend on what I think about them,
right?  Also, I think that I'm only in the position of taking something
from the community; I try to give as well.

> Cheers,
> Daniele

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Daniele Nicolodi]

On 27/07/15 20:20, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> 
> On 2015-07-27, at 20:02, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>>> That I've already learned.  OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be
>>> that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in.  (Mind
>>> you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that.  But this system
>>> is almost unbearable.)
>>
>> This statement confirms that you do not really understand what you are
>> talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights, you cannot place
>> something in the public domain. If you do not release your work with an
>> explicit license, the default copyright protection law applies and this
>> means (in all jurisdictions I know about) that you reserve all rights to
>> yourself: none can use your code, and probably not even look at it.
> 
> I do understand (at least I think so).  And I do understand that my
> declaration of putting something in PD would be technically void.
> I just don't care about it, if the declaration of intent is clear.

If you do not care about the terms in which who receives your work is
able to use it, why all the discussion?

I thought that you were arguing that a less strict license than the GPL
is better for the content of a possible tutorial and you were inquiring
if you could release your code derived or inspired from GPL code with
another license. Now you say that you do not care, or better you say
that you do not want to give any rights to who receives your code.

I think you are confused.

Cheers,
Daniele

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 20:30, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> wrote:

> On 27/07/15 20:20, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>> 
>> On 2015-07-27, at 20:02, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>>>> That I've already learned.  OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be
>>>> that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in.  (Mind
>>>> you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that.  But this system
>>>> is almost unbearable.)
>>>
>>> This statement confirms that you do not really understand what you are
>>> talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights, you cannot place
>>> something in the public domain. If you do not release your work with an
>>> explicit license, the default copyright protection law applies and this
>>> means (in all jurisdictions I know about) that you reserve all rights to
>>> yourself: none can use your code, and probably not even look at it.
>> 
>> I do understand (at least I think so).  And I do understand that my
>> declaration of putting something in PD would be technically void.
>> I just don't care about it, if the declaration of intent is clear.
>
> If you do not care about the terms in which who receives your work is
> able to use it, why all the discussion?
>
> I thought that you were arguing that a less strict license than the GPL
> is better for the content of a possible tutorial and you were inquiring
> if you could release your code derived or inspired from GPL code with
> another license. Now you say that you do not care, or better you say
> that you do not want to give any rights to who receives your code.
>
> I think you are confused.

I was unclear again, sorry.

1. As for my planned tutorial: I am reconciled with the idea that it
might have to be GPL'd.  Though I still maintain that GPL is not an
optimal license for such work.

2. As for other code I might write and publish: I'm tempted to use the
Unlicense (which is basically more or less putting it into the PD), even
though it might (technically) be void.

> Cheers,
> Daniele

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Robert Klein]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:49:05 +0200
Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> wrote:

> 
> On 2015-07-27, at 20:30, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 27/07/15 20:20, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> >> 
> >> On 2015-07-27, at 20:02, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> >>>> That I've already learned.  OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD
> >>>> might be that I explicitly state that I object the legal system
> >>>> I live in.  (Mind you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far
> >>>> from that.  But this system is almost unbearable.)
> >>>
> >>> This statement confirms that you do not really understand what
> >>> you are talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights,
> >>> you cannot place something in the public domain. If you do not
> >>> release your work with an explicit license, the default copyright
> >>> protection law applies and this means (in all jurisdictions I
> >>> know about) that you reserve all rights to yourself: none can use
> >>> your code, and probably not even look at it.
> >> 
> >> I do understand (at least I think so).  And I do understand that my
> >> declaration of putting something in PD would be technically void.
> >> I just don't care about it, if the declaration of intent is clear.
> >
> > If you do not care about the terms in which who receives your work
> > is able to use it, why all the discussion?
> >
> > I thought that you were arguing that a less strict license than the
> > GPL is better for the content of a possible tutorial and you were
> > inquiring if you could release your code derived or inspired from
> > GPL code with another license. Now you say that you do not care, or
> > better you say that you do not want to give any rights to who
> > receives your code.
> >
> > I think you are confused.
> 
> I was unclear again, sorry.
> 
> 1. As for my planned tutorial: I am reconciled with the idea that it
> might have to be GPL'd.  Though I still maintain that GPL is not an
> optimal license for such work.
> 
> 2. As for other code I might write and publish: I'm tempted to use the
> Unlicense (which is basically more or less putting it into the PD),
> even though it might (technically) be void.
> 
> > Cheers,
> > Daniele

FWIW, what Richard Lawrence posted in the other threat sounds good.  

Please feel free to use my material I posted to the list
(see
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2015-06/msg00160.html)
I mostly copied the export function in the example from org-mode, but
the rest you may use as you like.

Best regards
Robert

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Oleh Krehel]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters.  To this end,
> I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter.  Rather
> obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex),
> which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in
> particular).  I'd like to put my code in public domain.  However,
> I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but
> still).  Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or
> something?

If anywhere in your code there's (require 'org), you have to release
your code under GPL.

If you want a Public Domain license, you'll have to write an exporter
basically without using Elisp, since the GNU Emacs implementation of
Elisp is GPL. You could write it in Python, for example, and just add a
shell call in Elisp. In that case the Python code could be PD, while the
couple-line Elisp shell call would still be GPL.

regards,
Oleh

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Rasmus]

Oleh Krehel <ohwoeowho@gmail.com> writes:

> If anywhere in your code there's (require 'org), you have to release
> your code under GPL.

Are you sure about that?  By this logic, *any* .el file should be GPL as
they use (defun ·), implicitly loaded from byte-run.

Rasmus

-- 
Lasciate ogni speranza o voi che entrate: siete nella mani di'machellaio

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Oleh Krehel]

Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> writes:

> Oleh Krehel <ohwoeowho@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> If anywhere in your code there's (require 'org), you have to release
>> your code under GPL.
>
> Are you sure about that?  By this logic, *any* .el file should be GPL as
> they use (defun ·), implicitly loaded from byte-run.

I'm pretty sure: you're calling a library that is GPLv3.  There was this
whole TiVo issue about linking GPL libraries to non-GPL code, which
resulted in GPLv3. I just checked, and `progn' is GPLv3 and not GPLv2
(which would at least have a chance to be linked).

--Oleh

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Daniele Nicolodi]

On 27/07/15 14:25, Oleh Krehel wrote:
> Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> writes:
> 
>> Oleh Krehel <ohwoeowho@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> If anywhere in your code there's (require 'org), you have to release
>>> your code under GPL.
>>
>> Are you sure about that?  By this logic, *any* .el file should be GPL as
>> they use (defun ·), implicitly loaded from byte-run.
> 
> I'm pretty sure: you're calling a library that is GPLv3.  There was this
> whole TiVo issue about linking GPL libraries to non-GPL code, which
> resulted in GPLv3. I just checked, and `progn' is GPLv3 and not GPLv2
> (which would at least have a chance to be linked).

Hello,

I'm not sure that using an interpreter for running some code classifies
as linking, but I don't know of any "official" statement on the subject.

On the other hand, Elisp is an extension language for a GPL program,
thus it may be argued that implicitly everything coded in Elist is an
extension of Emacs and therefore linked to it.

I believe this issue must have come up before. Does anyone have a link
to some statement from the GNU Project about this?

Cheers,
Daniele

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-07-27, at 14:50, Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> wrote:

> I'm not sure that using an interpreter for running some code classifies
> as linking, but I don't know of any "official" statement on the subject.
>
> On the other hand, Elisp is an extension language for a GPL program,
> thus it may be argued that implicitly everything coded in Elist is an
> extension of Emacs and therefore linked to it.
>
> I believe this issue must have come up before. Does anyone have a link
> to some statement from the GNU Project about this?

I'd also love to hear!

> Cheers,
> Daniele

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Achim Gratz]

Marcin Borkowski writes:
> I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters.  To this end,
> I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter.  Rather
> obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex),
> which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in
> particular).  I'd like to put my code in public domain.

I'm pretty sure that you cannot do that, for the simple reason that you
cannot unilaterally waive all creators' rights (of which copyright is
one part) in the EU to the best of my knowledge.  There is also no such
thing as "putting something into the public domain" in most
jurisdictions anyway, since PD is defined as the absence of any
applicable statutory rights.  This also makes PD a very shaky ground to
stand on, since something that is in the PD in one jurisdiction doesn't
necessarily stay that way in another.  You can license your publication
in a way that effectively makes it indistinguishable from PD, though.

> However, I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic
> ones, but still).  Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF
> lawyers or something?

If the reuse is substantial enough (from your description I'd say yes),
then you have to license the result as GPL also.  That is just for the
code, not the tutorial, however.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Wavetables for the Waldorf Blofeld:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldUserWavetables