Re: GPL v3 survey site
David Kastrup writes:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> Anything that is written by me is GPLv3; it's all assigned
to the FSF
> in any case.
Tricky. I think it is your choice to pick a license (actually, any
license at all, not restricted to free licenses if I remember the
assignment contract),
The assignment has nothing to do with it as far as I can see. I can
contribute it to XEmacs under any license I choose; "it" is *mine* at
that point in time. It's only after I contribute it that it becomes
the FSF's, and they can relicense their copies, as you say. I believe
that the earliest possible date of contribution is when I commit to
XEmacs public repos.
Of course, it makes no sense to pick a license that the FSF would
likely
override in their copies, in order to avoid forks.
Au contraire. Creating a sensibly-licensed (for my purpose) fork
might very well be what I have in mind. For example, I'm coming to
the conclusion that GPLed documentation makes a lot of sense for
XEmacs, unless we decide to go the single-owner route. But doing that
ex post is very expensive, as the maintainer of AUCTeX knows very
well, and would be more so for XEmacs which probably has a greater
proportion of code by assignment refuseniks than AUCTeX.
So far it does not look like they'd bother distributing anything
in the
tests (heck, in all of XEmacs) at all, let alone relicensed.
You forget lwlib. Not to mention footnote.el and `split-string',
among others.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta