Re: Grammar checking

[Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 9:37 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > From: Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2023 08:59:50 -0400
> > Cc: Nasser Alkmim <nasser.alkmim@gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, rms@gnu.org,
> >       m.eliachevitch@posteo.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 4:49 AM Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> wrote:
> > > > The one that works best for me is this Grammarly language server [1].
> > > It might give better results, but it's proprietary software.
> >
> > LanguageTool isn't proprietary software, but it is used for SaaSS
> > where the "premium" tier appears to use rule sets that are not
> > released with the base tool.  LanguageTool.org is very clear in using
> > the term "open source" rather than "free" to describe the software
> > (and configuration files) for its "Basic" service.
>
> I don't understand what you are trying to say.  LanguageTool is
> distributed with its sources, and the code is under LGPL 2.  The
> "premium" version is not what we are considering.  So where is the
> problem with that?
>
> > Given discussions that have happened in the last few months on this
> > list, I'm surprised the software maintained by the languagetool
> > project would be considered suitable for introducing a dependency into
> > core emacs.
>
> We are discussing a possibility of using LanguageTool as an external
> tool with which Emacs will communicate, not as a dependency for the
> Emacs core.

I'll respond to this point first, then the question above, so the
context is clear.

I might have misunderstood - this thread arose because you mentioned
that grammar correction was a higher priority than reimplementing
spell-checking support, so I took it to mean the support would be
included in core in the same way spell-c,hecker support is
incorporated in the core, even though the actual spell checking is
dependent on an external tool being available.

Re "So where is the problem with that"?  There may not be one - it's
possible I'm misunderstanding the implications of the GNU coding
standards.  It seems to me there are three potential issues:

1) Violations of
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html#References
if it is read to include references to SaaSS as equivalent to
references to nonfree software.
2)  Long term implications with regard to the set of grammar rules
emacs encourages using
3)  Concerns about trademarks and confusion as to whether
"languagetool" is intended to reference the software or the product -
not just legally, but with end users

Regarding (1):  Based on previous discussions on this list and
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
, I am extrapolating that the prohibition against linking to websites
that promote non-free software also apply to websites that promote
SaaSS.  In particular:

[[ BEGIN QUOTE ]]
What about chains of links? Following links from nearly any web site
can lead eventually to promotion of non-free software; this is
inherent in the nature of the web. Here’s how we treat that.

You should not refer to AT&T’s web site if that recommends AT&T’s
non-free software packages; you should not refer to a page p that
links to AT&T’s site presenting it as a place to get some non-free
program, because that part of the page p itself recommends and
legitimizes the non-free program.

However, if p contains a link to AT&T’s web site for some other
purpose (such as long-distance telephone service), that is no reason
you should not link to p.
[[ END QUOTE ]]

In this case, the language tool repository page clearly refers to the
languagetool.org website.  Furthermore, the basic grammar rules that
are free are used as an enticement to consider the SaaSS.  On
languagetool.org's webpage, there is a FAQ, which includes the Q&A:

[[ BEGIN QUOTE ]]
Is LanguageTool free?
LanguageTool is available in two versions. The free version corrects
spelling as well as simple punctuation and some style mistakes. Only
the Premium version will show you all errors and give you the best
possible text. Team accounts for companies are also available.
[[ END QUOTE ]]
and then links https://languagetool.org/insights/post/premium-vs-free-product-updates/
with the text "Read more"

So, it would seem to me referencing the languagetool git repository
would violate the general prohibition.  Of course, someone could fork
the project to provide the source in a way that excises all such
references.

Regarding (2):  Based on the text I just quoted about the
(intentional) limitations of the free rule set, it seems that if emacs
encourages the use of (local) languagetool servers, users will
inevitably want to improve its performance.  There are at least two
ways that can play out:

(a) that activity go into the repo languagetool.org maintains for
"community" rulesets under the LGPL, so they may be included in
languagetool.org's SaaSS
(b) emacs developers/users establish a separate repository distributed
under a copyleft, probably Affero-type, license to prevent their
inclusion in languagetool.org's SaaSS

I'm sure there are other ways, but these are the primary ones I can
foresee.  I guess my question is whether that is a position the GNU
project is content to put its users in, especially as many users will
probably be content with (a) or simply subscribing to the Premium
service.

(3)  Presumably the trademark confusion can be worked around, it would
simply take some care, i.e. be a slight headache.

For me, this is primarily an intellectual exercise as I am not a
contributor (due to legal ambiguities about my right to assign
copyrights, not my willingness to do so), but I would like to
understand how the standards are applied in this situation.  Am I
wrong about treating SaaSS consistently with nonfree software when it
comes to promoting its use?

Lynn