From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Licence of ts-comint Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 18:01:36 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1502621936.3273210.1071832168.58C017A8@webmail.messagingengine.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1502661778 14349 195.159.176.226 (13 Aug 2017 22:02:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:02:58 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 14 00:02:54 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dh0yB-0003Mm-EI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 00:02:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39576 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dh0yH-0007lA-Ol for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 18:02:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40990) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dh0xE-0007jS-8v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 18:01:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dh0xB-00085w-7x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 18:01:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=58037 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dh0xB-00085h-1P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 18:01:49 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dh0x0-0007id-CR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 00:01:38 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 54 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:OejIOFxoLW50qIO5zZegyPJd6T8= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:217523 Archived-At: > 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 explicitly said I'd be happy to integrate LLDB support into GUD. The only reason why it's not there is because that package was removed from the upstream repository at that time. I know Richard had a different opinion, but he was not maintainer. I don't know what is the current maintainers's opinion about include support for LLVM/LLDB/... into Emacs. I'm personally have no issue with it. > 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". FWIW, there is currently a lot of effort from various companies to rewrite GPL'd Free Software into non-copyleft Free Software. Maybe the FSF also wastes some time doing so, but it's very far from the worst culprit in this regard. > It's obviously meant as a joke, but I hope you can see where that joke > is coming from. Oh, yes. I see a lot of anti-FSF bashing behind it for ideological reasons, indeed. > 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. GPLv1+ is compatible with GPLv2+ which is compatible with GPLv3+. So you'll only find problems with those people who used "GPLv2-only" such as the Linux project. > 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. The FSF will be berated no matter what it does, because its goal irk influential people. > 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" If someone said it's "incompatible" he was confused. Stefan