Jostein, Thank you very much for the reply. I must apologize for the hassle because the script that automatically checked for GPL2+ (or other equivalent wordings) did not catch "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along" and I did not take the time to actually check for myself. Thank you very much for your work, and for making the effort to use a license that makes your package compatible with Emacs. Regards, Jean-Christophe > On Aug 13, 2017, at 12:58, Jostein Kjønigsen wrote: > > Hey Jean. > > Thanks for the email. > > I'll be frank and admit I don't really care that much about licensing as long as software I use is open-source. That applies to stuff I write and maintain myself. > > (Prepare for a slight rant) > > With that said, I'm a bit put off by how much effort the FSF/GNU puts into copyright and licensing of code, as opposed ... the code itself. > > The whole GCC AST thing and debate about the "freeness" of the AST lead to LLVM being made. For similar reasons, Emacs and GUD has for a long time not supported a Elf-3 capable debugger, because before GDB got that capability that would mean supporting LLDB, which would be "bad" (it not being GPL-licensed and all). > > I've seen this quote on some forum online: "The FSF was formed to replace proprietary software with free software. Having succeeded, it now lives on to replace free software with free software". > > It's obviously meant as a joke, but I hope you can see where that joke is coming from. Is this really where your effort is best spent? > > And now this... I honestly find the churn the FSF is putting on its GPL licenses quite baffling. > > If the GPL v1 was good enough for free software... Why on earth should the FSF develop and deploy a new license which renders all former GPLed code "incompatible" (as you put it)? I'm lost for words. Are there really anyone besides Richard M. Stallmann who condones this move? > > If you now make the GPL-license incompatible not only with BSD or MIT-type licenses, but also the GPL license itself... Prepare to be even further berated next time the GPL vs BSD-license is up for debate in online forums. Why put so much effort into making license compliance so hard? > > From the outside looking in, it looks like needlessly inconveniencing the very people who made stuff for your platform. > > You're obviously free to do whatever you please, but to me this just seems a misguided. If your goal is to promote free software, how do you see this helping? > > (End of rant) > > That said... My small and pretty insignificant package is already licensed "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along". > > If you still think this is "incompatible" and needs an upgrade, and if you are willing to do the leg-work... You know where my repo is. Feel free to issue a pull-request and I'll have it merged. > > -- > Yours truly > Jostein Kjønigsen > > jostein@kjonigsen.net 🍵 jostein@gmail.com > https://jostein.kjonigsen.net > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In a thread in the emacs-devel maillist, the licensing situation for >> emacs >> packages provided through Emacs package archives has been under focus. I >> have >> volunteered to contact the authors of packages that have a license that >> is >> incompatible with Emacs, which is now under GPL-3+. >> >> See https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2017-07/msg01069.html >> >> So I wonder if you could consider to change the license of your package >> to >> GPL-3+? >> >> Also, you may have noticed that the package from which ts-comint is >> forked has recently moved to GPL3+. >> https://github.com/redguardtoo/js-comint/commit/eb4744122724b24e492c2171fff438e3ee2045a8 >> >> Yours, >> >> Jean-Christophe Helary >