Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3114 bytes --]

>>> "RS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

>> > Ah, and another thing I just found out a few files don't even have a
>> > license included, that is why I thought  a LICENSE could come in handy. 

>> In case of doubt, a LICENSE file or a COPYING file is useful. A line in
>> the readme has a similar effect: they make sure that contributions
>> without a license in the file are understood to be under the license
>> given.

> I need to correct some misunderstandings here,

> In GNU Project practice, we put a copy of the license text into a file
> called `COPYING'.  (Look at Emacs itself for an example.)  Some people
> do something similar but call the file `LICENSE'. The file's name is
> not crucial, but if you call it `LICENSE', or `FOOBAR', make sure the
> program elsewhere refers to it by the right name.

> It is necessary for the program to contain a copy of the license, but
> including a copy somewhere is NOT the same thing as releasing code
> under that licene.  The latter establishes a relationship between the
> code (in source files) and the license (in `COPYING' or wherever).

> We establish this relation with a license notice.  It says, more or
> less, "This code is released under the GNU GPL, version 3 or later --
> see the file `COPYING'."  It has a few more lines for legal reasons.
> Please use the standard version!

> Usually we put the license notice at the start of the source file, but
> it can be in other places.  To state this in README is valid, but
> there is a drawback: the file may get separated from that README and
> then it won't be clear what license the file carries.


Ok thanks for this clarification. So to sum it up, the safest practise
is to have a LICENSE file *and* a LICENSE header in each source file?


> Putting a package into GNU ELPA requires copyright assignment.  Uwe,
> have you got us copyright assignments for all the material in the
> package?

Well almost, the main authors/maintainers did sign and most of the
others (the package started in 1992) also there are two or three cases
that are doubtful, but unfortunately last year my workload did not allow
me to finish the task and that is why I hope in this month I can.

The reason I brought this  subject up here, again, was motivated by a recent
email from a person involved in Debian. 

So to sum it up, I will make sure that all files are under GPLv3+,
give the Debian person my ok, and then hopefully get all the signatures
needed, to put in ELPA.

-- 
Warning: Content may be disturbing to some audiences
I strongly condemn Putin's war of aggression against the Ukraine.
I support to deliver weapons to Ukraine's military. 
I support the NATO membership of the Ukraine.
I support the EU membership of the Ukraine. 
https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/gmail-conversation-view/

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5673 bytes --]