From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin_Le_Gouguec?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs? Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 17:18:47 +0200 Message-ID: <87ftcbrcx4.fsf@gmail.com> References: <9mmFgzvrBwjt_n_VJyaJdXINraNi5HsGpwq-0MLeKiJA7kG2BQA4uywrzjyz7lpRS0OZDpjEi8lspOKYUA7P_QsODsDew_8nbH960G55fmY=@protonmail.com> <97DA7804-F647-4A1D-B8E0-AFFE7A324C64@gmail.com> <87d07xamrg.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <878silajdl.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87tv18pyh4.fsf@russet.org.uk> <874ksshyl7.fsf@gmail.com> <83tv0rkj87.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="99727"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: casouri@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, eric@ericabrahamsen.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, ndame@protonmail.com, phillip.lord@russet.org.uk To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu May 07 17:20:08 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jWiJj-000Pnp-F2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 17:20:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36394 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWiJi-0000br-4g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 11:20:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54218) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWiIW-0007fn-W4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 11:18:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::429]:39106) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWiIV-0002fD-UI; Thu, 07 May 2020 11:18:52 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id l18so6860741wrn.6; Thu, 07 May 2020 08:18:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=GVMxw+ZuwqFdtujY/enSo3GG3teiLAmVSqA+FHJ3RSc=; b=OKd0+tnMRU+wRqW4AfI3r5vp+lWJwNn262qGyxgBEu5QVYageqxflbm7g9deUmKbG8 aYkeRAwBfsDRhYrDdgMF1quy76nKklTGfFRrLK1AMcuKPgAoxpqRy5+scgk6PIlzrzNG iH/zmSBdC3z47HNO3kKGXqof0Yxd/QEzrRY4PUddhZ0RBday9EH7h31ev8v2OJqe5G1E WgRwSMHedA0X0nnpH/sB0nYSsrPsI23tF8OV19eiEUCu1MRr5AK1U0gCjCoNTsLhmULr WAcC9rN/soUh+9ODKwtuWVm4z51XEsXVUzwwWrjE7YUrUA2w2/AlsKEvQ7i6n42VlnMw X9JA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=GVMxw+ZuwqFdtujY/enSo3GG3teiLAmVSqA+FHJ3RSc=; b=oHMs7fjn87VBP6lj5rlGzvpNtmpwpe/yn+sKSpslIV1ULJdAlvtSB1ohE6HVHImEu7 t9BSGXjM8pdpBWPH0jC70v6ujx8ChXarKLj4j2jEN7tUEdfpQRMXKBnml0pzCBOhUYhb e++oh6qin1weW0oeX7EmsWQqr+yrq5udevyCF6JHIr6VI79ms5K/fAnSaPRrbpU74nHb WsHs9sJqvOkYBwSOkoxjvg29fLi4HAbjjQK2xAZSsuOqAGSjrW/vvyb91tJIVyw6m4+J MlvuGV4N3rnQsTC6yNsXySZoqiFYFUl0RK3icGK+ePSkO8h4Dq8v+hjyocBZ0SPdyc9G hPrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZZwxYZxz4j6f6ppD4NSlQvR2Q64JqXy+DvC+zJZ6CoCM9utAY+ 6Xm+rw7iDSHftjaIMNN216k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLQlTfxR5PfakYHGeOYx6UrdXvdiopbATKvqb/byhAHz1LApB9REBTEVnXBrTxlHThbj+0zWg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:650b:: with SMTP id x11mr15746532wru.405.1588864729557; Thu, 07 May 2020 08:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from my-little-tumbleweed (200.143.13.109.rev.sfr.net. [109.13.143.200]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y63sm8845633wmg.21.2020.05.07.08.18.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 07 May 2020 08:18:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83tv0rkj87.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 07 May 2020 15:44:24 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::429; envelope-from=kevin.legouguec@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x429.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:249184 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> To me that sort of suggests that copyright assignment is neither >> sufficient (you still need enough resources to overcome "every spurious >> issue" the defending lawyers will throw at you) nor necessary (since >> Bradley considers it "asinine" to say "an infringement claim is invalid >> without holding a majority of the copyrights"). > > Actually, Bradley's conclusion, the very next paragraph after the one > you quoted, is a direct opposite of yours, AFAICT. Well, Bradley concludes that assignment makes enforcement "easier": > But, when I am asked: "Isn't it easier to enforce when you have all > the copyrights?", my answer has to be: "Yes, it's easier". It's a > trade-off; there's no question. My personal position is probably > obvious on this, since I have written often about preferring > multi-copyright held projects myself, but even I admit to being > annoyed by the downsides from time to time. But "easier" is not "directly opposite" to "neither sufficient nor necessary", at least in my understanding? Assignment may help, but Bradley says that it's not strictly necessary legally speaking, and it's not a silver bullet either. > If we are going to > cite others who might have educated opinions on this matter, why not > cite them more completely? In this case, because I did not believe the rest of the quote contradicted my understanding of the issue, but thank you for underlining Bradley's conclusion, which of course should be given more consideration than my own. The reason why I sent my previous message was in the hope that someone might give us an updated picture of the enforcement landscape; it's been some years since 2012. I apologize if it looked like I was putting words in Bradley's mouth.