Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  >   This may be because the
  > > library lacks a permission statement altogether (possibly because an
  > > accompanying ~LICENSE~ file is considered sufficient by the upstream),

  > > but it may also be because ~elx-license~ does not attempt to detect the
  > > used non-standard and/or non-fsf permission statement, or because of
  > > typos in the statement, or for a number of other reasons.

We need to get a handle on what is really going on for these cases.
A typo in a license notice, or an unusual license, might not be a real
problem.  The lack of a clearly stated free license is a real problem,
and the mere possibility that someone stated a license for it
in some other site is not enough to make the problem go away.

We need to find out what is going on in those 500 packages.

One useful way to investigate would be to pick 10 of those packages,
and see what is the situation with each of them.

Would someone please volunteer to do this?

  > > Does that mean the Eclipse Public License?

  > My guess is as good as yours; the string ";; License: EPL" was found.

Could someone please check for certain?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.