From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lynn Winebarger Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Brand new clojure support in Emacs ;-) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 12:28:57 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87il9kksqz.fsf@dfreeman.email> <87a5uw9ivs.fsf@posteo.net> <87ttt42gna.fsf@dfreeman.email> <87wmy080kn.fsf@posteo.net> <83v8djcydl.fsf@gnu.org> <87350ndquw.fsf@dfreeman.email> <83350ncbns.fsf@gnu.org> <87cyzrjbd8.fsf@dfreeman.email> <83zg2vav46.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7j99304.fsf@dfreeman.email> <87zg2hsyrd.fsf@dfreeman.email> <87h6ontwfv.fsf@posteo.net> <835y4ucrz3.fsf@gnu.org> <831qficgin.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttsehwab.fsf@dfreeman.email> <954cc76b-5248-4d37-9d81-f8ecee13639b@app.fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ad75bd060476e467" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29113"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Danny Freeman , Eli Zaretskii , Dmitry Gutov , Richard Stallman , =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= , Emacs Devel To: Bozhidar Batsov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 03 18:29:40 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qcpyl-0007Ns-C1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2023 18:29:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qcpyP-00038Z-Al; Sun, 03 Sep 2023 12:29:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qcpyN-00038P-Ls for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2023 12:29:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qcpyL-0006Nn-65; Sun, 03 Sep 2023 12:29:15 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-26f9521de4cso182657a91.0; Sun, 03 Sep 2023 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693758549; x=1694363349; darn=gnu.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tTLS1pHV2jSrgrPTY/bqj8sCaBrLORYu5ExrYCR6eJM=; b=C9BYrkMDUy9B5Zj47rCTAHn2H7ZySKrvRLvh9yWoahrR5IrSBJbjiKXK/Nmdbpo9pn MuAePyCrFmi7v/jIjEvE3mrbtj/nl8hDhl21YRpcWIBYjMzVDwdhTXhITeDhCm7CbAqM jfDjdyqnu0x49mAMQvEdwxoT4kF6S9rnaa5622oIUo4OwJmMJDkg3P9TmwSo051BhAF6 ObJp7ZK/5q9EpK8jamVniJH8gZfCzyMGjEheF0oLiR3k6+c3lvCklkri59xPFu8BbKYA 4Vo3p/uk9b/TR8DNl1kGjW+n3RXHudaBuG2UUrAxe7KGl3tx6dG5VogKHyaqdlMZKDDE aBZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693758549; x=1694363349; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tTLS1pHV2jSrgrPTY/bqj8sCaBrLORYu5ExrYCR6eJM=; b=dZc5uZRg9Ees37F9zBFR6HP1N1wqVK7K4pFH2GLXK6+kzdSuBdDwApVI0SiAwRMaHo gf0eIhahIfChfJTay5j8e0k1OWdmkNGlHX07DIm6OBl6ugv9v0D+MtRiFj+R+ggthocI ZzLQWNx3MSPQA8+t+ykrvx2O9ccrZM1czfdzmk0CfO0uqsEOUAWpg4sa/54Ga+j33Oyr 4XOAc/5RSuZ/Zrm/3aXWqw4BLEXjBPBx3Ag2gJoviECBmWW4t/7tqAqtvRO6jatMm5SZ MZDyGA1l3lcchPefQNLSuewVOlweRqqDkWLiN6SUn2tFSEv8fVQgDk9eHjQdjxrBQCwq //lw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxR/1F/L/fl1MorD9p6kRbrGaOlkUQ0aQnMaYVlAP5ycqPrvcdr bQriqVq6K6imdl/DmtGLpNcoFogNV10osKfJUqI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFQTxgcFevBhdL8ezIzYDvyqlN99Jx4ksIcKyGpKS/1RKKJSXfHsDNq+ftdPdaN/fLz+BkKH/8jxLPr6ftAEdg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:fe86:b0:268:5919:a276 with SMTP id co6-20020a17090afe8600b002685919a276mr5319077pjb.20.1693758549487; Sun, 03 Sep 2023 09:29:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <954cc76b-5248-4d37-9d81-f8ecee13639b@app.fastmail.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030; envelope-from=owinebar@gmail.com; helo=mail-pj1-x1030.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:310004 Archived-At: --000000000000ad75bd060476e467 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Sep 3, 2023, 11:15 AM Bozhidar Batsov wrote: > That's a pretty disappointing remark, which implies that the Emacs team > doesn't really care about having a good collaboration with the authors and > maintainers of 3rd party Emacs packages. > I'm an outsider, so you should not regard my view as representative of the GNU emacs "team", whatever that encompasses. My interest is primarily in the extent to which dealing with the employer waiver involved in the copyright assignment caused your lack of interest in allowing a (presumably minor) fork to be maintained for use in the core, if no further constraints were required of the upstream package. My interest is not in persuading the GNU project to change its policy, but to see if there is any evidence of harm to non-profit endeavors like the FSF/GNU project caused by the ambiguity around the enforceability of assignment clauses in employment contracts that are not for works created in the course of employment. Such evidence might be useful in lobbying law-makers for reform, or attorneys-general for a broader reading and enforcement of existing laws. > I know that for whatever reason we're now discussing clojure-mode, but > there are many other major modes for which one can make exactly the same > case (erlang-mode, elixir-mode, haskell-mode, etc). Let's just rush forward > and include some stripped down/forked versions of them upstream as well, > ignoring the people behind them and their end users (who are bound to face > some degree of confusion short term). Adopting such a combative stance > across the board would be very harmful for our small community IMO. > I'm not sure what the GNU emacs team will decide is appropriate, but I think they have been pretty accommodating. In any case, I don't believe the GNU project would publish a derivative work of an extant 3rd party package without the author's consent. The project's requirement of a clear copyright assignment, and the assignment's clear assurances regarding the intent of the author to make the contribution (at the time of the contribution at least), would make that difficult. On the other side, I don't believe your labor gives you, or anyone, proprietary rights to dictate how the GNU emacs team should name libraries in their project. Rejecting participation in their development process *decreases* your influence in the decisions they make. It would be perverse to reward someone for rejecting participation by granting them greater influence. That's just a generic observation on social organizations and processes. Your view on the obligations of etiquette and goodwill seems asymmetric to me. What I don't understand is why you (or anyone) publishes software under a free license and then act aggrieved that someone would make use of the freedoms the license accords them. Such developers would seem to prefer a non-free license that requires contribution back to and acceptance by the original project. At least, that's how it seems to me. Lynn --000000000000ad75bd060476e467 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sun, Sep 3, 2023, 11:15 AM Bozhida= r Batsov <bozhi= dar@batsov.dev> wrote:
That's a pretty disappointing remark, which implies that th= e Emacs team doesn't really care about having a good collaboration with= the authors and maintainers of 3rd party Emacs packages.

I'm an= outsider, so you should not regard my view as representative of the GNU em= acs "team", whatever that encompasses.=C2=A0 My interest is prima= rily in the extent to which dealing with the employer waiver involved in th= e copyright assignment caused your lack of interest in allowing a (presumab= ly minor) fork to be maintained for use in the core, if no further constrai= nts were required of the upstream package.=C2=A0 My interest is not in pers= uading the GNU project to change its policy, but to see if there is any evi= dence of harm to non-profit endeavors like the FSF/GNU project caused by th= e ambiguity around the enforceability of assignment clauses in employment c= ontracts that are not for works created in the course of employment.=C2=A0 = Such evidence might be useful in lobbying law-makers for reform, or attorne= ys-general for a broader reading and enforcement of existing laws.


I know that for whatever= reason we're now discussing clojure-mode, but there are many other maj= or modes for which one can make exactly the same case (erlang-mode, elixir-= mode, haskell-mode, etc). Let's just rush forward and include some stri= pped down/forked versions of them upstream as well, ignoring the people beh= ind them and their end users (who are bound to face some degree of confusio= n short term). Adopting such a combative stance across the board would be v= ery harmful for our small community IMO.=C2=A0

I'm not sure what= the GNU emacs team will decide is appropriate, but I think they have=C2=A0= been pretty accommodating.=C2=A0 In any case, I don't believe the GNU p= roject would publish a derivative work of an extant 3rd party package witho= ut the author's consent.=C2=A0 The project's requirement of a clear= copyright assignment, and the assignment's clear assurances regarding = the intent of the author to make the contribution (at the time of the contr= ibution at least), would make that difficult.

On the other side, I don't believe your labor gives you, or an= yone, proprietary rights to dictate how the GNU emacs team should name libr= aries in their project.=C2=A0 Rejecting participation in their development = process *decreases* your influence in the decisions they make.=C2=A0 It wou= ld be perverse to reward someone for rejecting participation by granting th= em greater influence.=C2=A0 That's just a generic observation on social= organizations and processes.=C2=A0 Your view on the obligations of etiquet= te and goodwill seems asymmetric to me.

What I don't understand is why you (or anyone) publishe= s software under a free license and then act aggrieved that someone would m= ake use of the freedoms the license accords them.=C2=A0 Such developers wou= ld seem to prefer a non-free license that requires contribution back to and= acceptance by the original project.=C2=A0 At least, that's how it seem= s to me.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Lynn
=C2=A0
--000000000000ad75bd060476e467--