Re: GPLv3 or later -- Lispref files refers to text in lispref.text
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
Stephen> We know what we need to do: make a list of the files with uncertain
Stephen> permissions (this is basically done, but I forget where the list is),
Stephen> contact their authors, if refused or no response then remove and if
Stephen> necessary replace those files,
If the files aren't necessary why not simply remove them?
The English syntax is complicated, I guess, but that's my intended
meaning. Of course if they're useful but optional, they can be put on
a list to try to recover them later.
Yes, and this is preferably done on the trunk on a daily basis. So
the
files needs to be brought up to a GPLV2 or later (or compatible) state
before the big bang. Compatible here means either a copyright that can
be relicensed as GPLV3 or later or can be kept as is eg isn't in the
way.
One example of the later would be the lispref-files. (If I
understand it correctly.)
That's right. Most of our Texinfo files are inherited from GNU Emacs
19 and mixed with lots of work later; in practice it would be quite
difficult to relicense them at all, and I imagine that the FSF would
only allow the currently recommended version of the GFDL (or later
version, as usual).
The thing about code files is that my experience is that people are
generally pretty picky about licenses for their original code, and
often adamantly refuse to assign copyright even for derived code---
but they're usually quite happy to accept small changes in the license
for the good of the project. (Of course you know about Bob Weiner and
GPLv1, and probably you know about the SSLeay license that was
deliberately designed to annoy the FSF and RMS. But that kind of
thing is very exceptional.) However, since the FSF is a major
stakeholder in our docs, I don't know if we'd have an option of
anything but GFDL.
It also tries to categorise files according to what copyright they
have so that for example the lispref files stand out. The idea I had
was that we should run that script on the code base and it would spit
out a list that would clearly state in what GPL-state each file
is. Sort of "must-be-fixed", "ready-to-relicens",
"ok-but-not-relicensable". What do you say? Waste of time or something
to go for!?
The work has to be done, IMO. It could be done partly by hand if
that's easier, since I doubt that the script will need to be used by
us more than once or twice (and that in a short period of time). But
if you don't mind writing a more robust script, you might want to put
it on SourceForge or something for the benefit of others. If the
Linux project ever decides to use GPLv3, you might even end up with
free stock in Red Hat. :-)
What do you think of the possibility that the solution to
questionable
files is to replace them with GPLv2 files from Emacs?
It's unlikely that that can be done very easily in the case of
"necessary" files. But as an optimization, it should be the first
thing to check. A quick diffstat should give a pretty good idea.
I fear that finding authors to some files will be difficult and for
those it might be best just to go straight for a replacement.
We don't have to wait for replies from authors if there seems to be a
feasible replacement, of course.
Finding authors can be a problem; if we really need their code, the
Review Board can discuss (after getting real legal advice) the option
of a unilateral license change. There are precedents for this; the
Wikipedia did it, for example. There is also a white paper on the OSI
site by Eric Raymond that suggests that it might even stand up in
court if challenged. You'd lose the specific code from that author
but there needn't be other penalties. Presumably that white paper was
written with the (informal) advice of a real lawyer.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta