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: enable MELPA & Marmalade by defaul [was: mykie.el] Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:19:03 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87d2k2oblk.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87bnzshlo5.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87bnzshlo5.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <20140103.200846.1574807089640559527.cokesboy@gmail.com> <87a9f8g22x.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <76f5b9cd-3452-4189-b3a0-30dc55a3ee55@default> <87wqic65kj.fsf@wanadoo.es> <874n5gfvjv.fsf@mac.com> <93a2d060-c7f8-4ce3-9bff-f7397be690ff@default> <874n5fhn1j.fsf@schjetne.se> <87wqibu8px.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> <87lhyrtsus.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> <87lhyqher9.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389187175 5504 80.91.229.3 (8 Jan 2014 13:19:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 13:19:35 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 08 14:19:41 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 1W0t2o-0003s5-SP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:19:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46739 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0t2o-00076L-6t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:19:38 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39503) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0t2f-00075L-Ee for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:19:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0t2Z-0002tl-JH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:19:29 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43025) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0t2Z-0002th-Bz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:19:23 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W0t2X-0003ID-Pb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:19:21 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f4cd3f.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.205.63]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:19:21 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f4cd3f.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:19:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f4cd3f.dyn.telefonica.de 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/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:DzPc7pmNjzFlEV/26KkWnmdcQLM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:167724 Archived-At: Tassilo Horn writes: > Stephen Berman writes: > >>>> Is it even "legal" to distribute any elisp code that is not at least >>>> compatible with the GPL? After all, any elisp code will have to >>>> link with Emacs to be usable. >>> >>> Not sure why you put "legal" in quotes. >> >> Just a hedge, since I'm not sure of the legal status of the GPL, >> whether in the US or any other jurisdiction. > > At least here in Germany, the GPL has been confirmed several times by > German courts. Whatever you may consider "confirmed". The point is just that the defense against GPL violations is rather weak. "Your honor, we consider the GPL to be invalid and ourselves not bound by it." Which is perfectly fine, and the GPL explicitly allows for it. The problem is that the followup question then is "Ok, let's put aside the GPL. What _other_ permission did you have for using this software?" And things go downhill from there. The ultimate position tends to be something along the line of "no reasonable person could have expected the license to mean what it says". And getting a judge to swallow that is a challenge. It's not as much the GPL that is confirmed in such cases, but rather copyright as such. One reason there is more confirmation in Germany might be that in Germany, "loser pays all". In the U.S., it is much more expensive to defend what is obviously yours. -- David Kastrup