From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: License Notice for ELPA packages Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 17:11:23 -0400 Message-ID: References: <86jzfnyevy.fsf@gnu.org> <874j6rzqo0.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31901"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Arash Esbati , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Kangas , "Protesilaos Stavrou" , Jose E. Marchesi To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 07 23:12:23 2024 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 1sn2jF-0008AQ-Qn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 23:12:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sn2iU-0007i2-Ev; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 17:11:34 -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 1sn2iT-0007hs-3u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 17:11:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sn2iR-0003lc-5Y; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 17:11:32 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BF2A58045E; Sat, 7 Sep 2024 17:11:28 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1725743487; bh=qsDbLcDGBxFc7kZgUUkbxQ7/qtAkPRojvfoFARgn1dc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=EW8Tzy7ZugF88v/GwzrNK0gOBWgimPtc2ELymhDkgElwIr6VZebQkc/v5KrZMWGsj kCXBZfLUkNBgzkhiqxoXD+KCvtKkBEEEe03F6JwEekdbAP0k7gueJnlRu2cr1IywzB 03DxAhF96Y/IkIN4t8eMmpzulrzy+Mhd8wFwc4oIhcJwpLZOuidXE71kpsxTVT/gt1 YEfog4lNMJutfDFjDRgRGUUPf832OHRsYkekz6jF0mSOJ8s1R/yewcsS3ITYdto0nU pJyPDkwFP+R2+N5NY3rMm9RAAF7pThOh5+BtQ5Rx5NluNR2lXr+empbqJLCKtQ6ISM Hxx3sa+KfMAVQ== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2A78E8079A; Sat, 7 Sep 2024 17:11:27 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from asado (169.183.173.62.cust.ip.kpnqwest.it [62.173.183.169]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AED112020D; Sat, 7 Sep 2024 17:11:25 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <874j6rzqo0.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Sat, 07 Sep 2024 10:47:27 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, 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:323495 Archived-At: > As ELPA packages are regarded to be part of Emacs (and distributed under > the same license), the comment should say "is part of GNU Emacs". I don't think it's that clear. It is considered as part of GNU Emacs in the sense that copyright assignments that cover Emacs also cover these files, but it is not considered as part of the GNU Emacs in the sense that it's not (currently) included in the distributed tarball. So historically we have accepted both "is part of GNU Emacs" and "is NOT part of GNU Emacs". IMO the better choice is to say neither. Stefan