From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:05:41 +0900 Message-ID: <87iqcy8816.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d4399auk.fsf@red-bean.com> <87hbsl7wr0.fsf@vh213601.truman.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1259193617 29277 80.91.229.12 (26 Nov 2009 00:00:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 26 01:00:10 2009 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 4.50) id 1NDRmJ-000290-Rn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:00:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47469 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NDRmJ-0007ab-7o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NDRmD-0007Xw-99 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:01 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NDRm8-0007Vq-Kv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:00 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56486 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NDRm8-0007Ve-Ih for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:59:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:57272) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NDRm5-0000wT-J3; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:59:53 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676107FFA; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:59:49 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9F1A6128BFB; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:05:41 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" 1444e28f1a3d XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:117789 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > allowing GPLv2 and not GPLv3 is a very bad example. We should not > set a bad licensing example. Please get your lawyer to look at it. It was the need of XEmacs for a license compatible with the unnamed, unversioned documentation license we inherited from Lucid (which presumably inherited it from Emacs 18 and Emacs 19) that inspired the multiple licensing. Alex wanted to generalize it, so the *intent* is that any license that grants the listed rights and requires that they be granted to those "downstream" of the licensee may be used. GPLv3 clearly qualifies by the intent. I am fairly sure that Alex would be happy to modify the permission notice based on a lawyer's advice on how to accomplish his intention. > In addition, I wonder about the other pages in that wiki have a > similar license. All pages in the wiki are licensed that way. I spot-checked one of the major programs distributed on the wiki, Drew Adams's "icicles". The pages describing the program say it is "GPL v2 or later" although the pages have the standard permission notice for the wiki. The libraries themselves contain the standard permission notice, for "GPL v2 or later". So I don't think there is a general problem with programs; anything large enough to have a separate file probably has the standard notice. Snippets of code included directly in a page will have the page's license, of course, but AFAIK nobody using the wiki believes that the GPL is only permitted as version 2. (I understand that what a court says may vary; please help Alex get the legal advice he needs to accomplish his intention.)