Re: XEmacs copyright
SL Baur writes:
I don't, but there used to be lots of stuff marked GPL v1 (or
later)
with authorship attributed to Lucid and Sun.
The point is that copyright and license are quite separate from each
other. If the permissions notice say "you may distribute under v1 or
later", then that means you may change the permissions notice to "you
may distribute under any odd version" if you like.
He might have added "or later" too.
That would be infringement of copyright. This allegedly has been done
in other cases, though (Wikipedia).
Do we still have XEmacs 19.14 and earlier in CVS? I'm curious
now.
Yes, but I'm not sure how much of it. There are tarballs at
ftp://ftp.xemacs.org/pub/xemacs/archive (or something like that), and
the xemacs19 module exists in CVS but I don't know offhand what
versions it contains.
Do note that our splash screen still says Copyright (c) _1990_-
1994 Lucid, Inc. and Lucid is dead, dead, dead and a 1990
copyright absolutely means pre GPL v2.
In 1990, yes. The date of copyright says nothing about what the
license is *now*.
> Unlikely. I have my differences with Stallman, but this is not
the
> kind of thing he gets peeved about.
Not to me. We cannot copyright assign XEmacs to the FSF because
we cannot get the consent of all the authors of XEmacs to do the
assignment (or any other kind of legal license change).
We already have consent to "upgrade" the license from any author who
gave us code under the "v$N or later clause".
The assignment issue is separate from upgrading the GPL per se.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta