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 11:32:09 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87lhyqojbq.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <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> <87lhyrgnrw.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389177168 17357 80.91.229.3 (8 Jan 2014 10:32:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:32:48 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 08 11:32:53 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 1W0qRQ-0006WJ-LP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:32:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46030 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0qRQ-0004J0-9O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 05:32:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60074) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0qR3-0003wB-WF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 05:32:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0qQy-00069O-43 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 05:32:29 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:47360) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0qQx-00069J-Sz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 05:32:24 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W0qQt-0005Fc-GU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:32:19 +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 11:32:19 +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 11:32:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 36 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:XHawoaUJ3vtFu0+pzfPupZRejP8= 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:167721 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Grim Schjetne writes: > > > I viewed a random package in Marmalade and it had no indication of a > > license whatsoever. Perhaps the author intended to release it as free > > software > > If so, it *is* free software. It's just very risky for users, because > without a verifiable statement of license, the author could change his > mind and the users would have no recourse. A user does not have a "recourse" anyway. The author can always change his mind even with a verifiable statement of license and sue. A verifiable statement of license is no help against that, but it is a good defense. Note that in the U.S.A., the financial risk of even a meritless lawsuit is enough of a detraction for anybody: only in the case of _frivolous_ lawsuits (and the barrier for that is rather high) does the defendant get to reclaim his court fees and attorney costs. > True, failing to post a license violates best practices, but it's > unlikely that even a patent shark would upload a file to Marmalade in > the hopes that they could sue users for enough money to pay court > costs. That's not the shark model for small fry. The shark model is to sue and/or send a cease and desist letter, then settle out of court for less than the cost of a successful defense. > It would be nice if the repos would enforce a policy of removing > packages that do not contain an explicit statement of license. Yes, definitely. -- David Kastrup