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: legalese haters club Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 17:20:58 +0900 Message-ID: <87siwelsid.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87hacvn8sm.fsf@gmail.com> <525065FB.2050800@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1381047688 7187 80.91.229.3 (6 Oct 2013 08:21:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 08:21:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 06 10:21:31 2013 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 1VSjal-0004xD-3G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 10:21:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54169 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VSjak-0005dD-AO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 04:21:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39090) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VSjaa-0005c9-AU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 04:21:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VSjaS-0008Dx-2D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 04:21:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:41054) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VSjaR-00086K-Mn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 04:21:11 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F263FA09F4; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:20:58 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B151B1A3D07; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:20:58 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <525065FB.2050800@dancol.org> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" 182d01410b8d XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.223 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:163905 Archived-At: Executive summary: But why do you care? The solution (for Emacs users -- does anybody develop Emacs with vi?) has been available since the Cretaceous Period (more exactly, January 19, 1991) as "hide-copyleft.el". Please leave the boilerplate alone, or you'll break the software! P.S. I don't use it myself. Daniel Colascione writes: > On 10/5/13 9:52 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > > | ;; GNU Emacs is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > > | ;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > > | ;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > > | ;; GNU General Public License for more details. > > Is this shouty bit really necessary? Depends on which lawyer you ask. Evidently the FSF's think it's a good idea. It's actually not shouty; the usage of all caps here precedes the Internet. I wouldn't be surprised if it precedes the telegraph. > Has there been a case in recorded history of a distributor or > developer of a program being held liable because he omitted similar > language? The SQLite people haven't been sued, after all, and they > release their software in the public domain. Public domain materials don't have an owner, so there's nobody to provide a warrantee. You'd have to prove criminal negligence or malicious intent to have a chance of recovering anything in that case. You'd also have to prove a particular person was responsible for a particular fault, and then find their money.[1] None of the above applies to FSF-owned software. Let the lawyers be lawyers, so we don't have to. Footnotes: [1] Well, actually the typical ambulance-chasing-type lawyer would check the checking account balance, and only then go looking for proof.