Re: reftex needs to be upgraded.
Rodney Sparapani writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Same way as you license any other file. Every file we distribute must
> be licensed to us for distribution. If it's part of XEmacs, it must
> be compatible with the GPL of appropriate version. If it's generated,
> it normally comes under the license of the file it was generated from.
Well, clearly this is not the case. Just look at ESS (perhaps it is not
representative: if so, then delete this rant now :o) There is no
license in the .ps, .rtf or .doc etc files.
Then legally all your downstreams are on shaky ground in
redistributing them.
It is representative, though. Most distributors of free software are
really pirates at heart, and play fast and loose with licensing
minutiae. When Emacs itself was relicensed, they discovered a couple
of dozen problems, despite decades of care with licensing.
It is true that you could license a text file like .ps or .rtf
which were generated by OpenOffice: so do they carry the OpenOffice
license?
That depends in general. Since OOo is open source, no, not the OOo
license. Output of a program is not restricted by open source
licenses.
If you use the typical GPL permission "ESS is free software under the
GPL" in most project files, then any files lacking explicit notice of
license somewhere in the project documentation are implicitly under
GPL, unless they are generated and the sources are under a different
copyleft, in which case the source's license would rule.
But, what do you do about .doc files which are binary?
The .doc file format admits metadata; Microsoft being strong supporter
of intellectual property rights, I'm sure a copyright notice can be
placed in a doc file, both as metadata and (obviously) as part of the
text to be displayed to readers.
Let's not get into a flame war, but I don't see where you are
going
with this.
Isn't it obvious? We're dealing with restrictive licenses, we should
obey those licenses as a matter of principle. In the case of
FSF-owned software, we need to be especially careful since RMS has no
love for us, and the FSF has proved itself willing to bully people
into submission by threatening them with court action even when it has
a weak legal case.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta