From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Akira Kyle Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On Contributing To Emacs Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2022 14:08:17 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87k0fn8od1.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2079"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Emacs developers To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 01 22:09:55 2022 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 1n3ldT-0000Mo-49 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2022 22:09:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46132 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n3ldQ-0003qO-UR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2022 16:09:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51860) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n3lc9-00038c-Ao for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2022 16:08:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-lf1-f43.google.com ([209.85.167.43]:33506) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n3lc7-0005iX-Hp; Sat, 01 Jan 2022 16:08:32 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-lf1-f43.google.com with SMTP id k21so66864527lfu.0; Sat, 01 Jan 2022 13:08:30 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dK7DZk6DFMRfAIKxFIaq6E32COIlBdNdIg/7oI42BIU=; b=fExu7q9D6GLBI3R7llXmkq00rCs76k5/YA2M2M7A4w6kZNhsBTFlOvMkDXoa86tWt+ /mZcxzQw+Hf5FpvHAKeC/175KeG8ldcp1pYLNaweS/Uf9VI489W1EvEmwDHhhiP7oYJR U2UmXOhCBkJLC8KM3a0pbWM/eyETHK05r/tVvSCRzkV1CJP+RW2Gmc2BEMl5FN6NbJMM cc/kTHIytsapPEf0VV+mE9h7VYan959z5YlazJzWCAtzaRpAQlH4GuivYGSww2K6XeTn KZsYvIFQoZhbM6j8peNGsX2jFvzJZLQRjTE64EXE7TKbneJVGa31R45brBTwMNErA6xT WGXw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533xBd6Q2oOX/MyH1coebmgPSg+sE9d42g9kRQ+OXqUgPkKJU2CO FY7ctGQKhlRH6EjjaxmoXJ33KVY/24MICR4+ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzNSsM440FfMEZD9gygDpZgeADJjNcsGFfFOHH5/N1q15PlcT4TlF/WfoLAp51vjxVwXQg8xg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:612:: with SMTP id b18mr6269453lfe.231.1641071309271; Sat, 01 Jan 2022 13:08:29 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-lj1-f181.google.com (mail-lj1-f181.google.com. [209.85.208.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z17sm3155716lfu.128.2022.01.01.13.08.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 01 Jan 2022 13:08:29 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by mail-lj1-f181.google.com with SMTP id p7so49086092ljj.1; Sat, 01 Jan 2022 13:08:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a2e:854b:: with SMTP id u11mr24801978ljj.390.1641071308942; Sat, 01 Jan 2022 13:08:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.167.43; envelope-from=aikokyle@gmail.com; helo=mail-lf1-f43.google.com X-Spam_score_int: 5 X-Spam_score: 0.5 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (0.5 / 5.0 requ) FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:283823 Archived-At: On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 9:27 PM Richard Stallman wrote: > > > I wish this process was more transparent than "send an email to > > assign@gnu.org and wait for a response". Why can't there be some > > webpage that outlines the process along with the necessary forms that > > I can follow and collect then send to assign@gnu.org? > > The instructions are complex, and depend on circumstances. We can > send them to a contributor who wants to know all the options we can > handle; but having each contributor figure out what to do would be a > lot more work for each, and would be unreliable. > > So the easy way is to let the FSF staff ask the contributor for the > pertinent facts, then recommend what papers to use. It is faster and > less work for the contributor, and less likely to lead to errors. > Please do not try to figure out on your own how to do that -- discuss > it with the staff. > > Just in case this might have changed in the past few years, I asked > the staff to verify it still works that way. > Okay thanks for explaining why the current process exists in the way it does. I don't think this is the process described in CONTRIBUTE though where it instructs one to download the form and fill it out, then send it. Perhaps this could be summed up in a sentence and added to CONTRIBUTE so someone understands why emailing assign@gnu.org is the first step and this multi-step process? It may also help to be upfront in CONTRIBUTE that this process can often take time so that expectations are correctly set at the outset. That might help alleviate some of the perceived difficulty of this process. > > Such resources exist but I, as a relatively > > uninformed newcomer to such issues, have to find them myself, > > You don't need those resources to submit FSF copyright papers. I will > look at the page you mentioned, but I doubt that SFC is trying to > explain how to do that. > I know I don't need those resources to actually complete the assignment, and I'm sure there are many contributors who just want to get the process over with and don't care about the justifications. However I think there are also contributors who, like me, are curious as to why the process exists in the form it does. At least for me, reading about the reasons for copyright assignments and understanding the justifications behind them with examples of copyright violation cases where copyright assignments has made a difference has been very important in shaping my perception of the burden of the process. Without such an understanding, I think it is much easier for a new contributor to see only the burden, be frustrated at the process, and even think it's entirely unnecessary. With such an understanding of the important reasons, it feels less burdensome and is easier to accept why it is a necessary prerequisite of contributing. This is why I would suggest the initial email from assign@gnu.org include more links to articles explaining these justifications, preferably from legal or other experts on the topic, so that a curious new contributor like me may educate themselves first, before sending an email, like I did earlier to this list.