8:41 a.m.
On 2011-02-15, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Aidan Kehoe writes:
> I’d accept it, and be happy to commit it.
Not until we have a GPLv3 release, you may not commit it.
When I said bring a few features of FSF into ours, I didn't mean by
copying code; just by achieving compatibitility, which would also
enable me to take a similar approach to FSF.
I might also see if what I want is in the last GPL2 Emacs, in which
case I could also copy code.
I don't want my own fork contaminated by GPL3!
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:20 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
On 2011-02-15, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
> Aidan Kehoe writes:
> > I’d accept it, and be happy to commit it.
> Not until we have a GPLv3 release, you may not commit it.
When I said bring a few features of FSF into ours, I didn't mean by
copying code; just by achieving compatibitility, which would also
enable me to take a similar approach to FSF.
I might also see if what I want is in the last GPL2 Emacs, in which
case I could also copy code.
I don't want my own fork contaminated by GPL3!
Vocabulary like "contaminated" belongs in the rhetoric of free
software's opponents. You might want to consider not feeding _their_
propaganda mills, even when your goals don't match that of the Free
Software Foundation.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:09 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
Vocabulary like "contaminated" belongs in the rhetoric of
free
software's opponents. You might want to consider not feeding _their_
propaganda mills, even when your goals don't match that of the Free
Software Foundation.
Why? The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed to
behave like a contaminant (or virus, if you prefer).
There's no advantage in pretending it isn't, whether or not one agrees
with the policy.
If commerce complains about the viral nature of the GPL, the right
answer is to say "yes, and this is why: ....".
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:36 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> Vocabulary like "contaminated" belongs in the rhetoric of free
> software's opponents. You might want to consider not feeding _their_
> propaganda mills, even when your goals don't match that of the Free
> Software Foundation.
Why? The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed to
behave like a contaminant (or virus, if you prefer).
Nonsense. If there is anything acting like a contaminant or virus, it
is copyright. You can't integrate or redistribute _any_ software from
third parties short of an explicit license.
The GPL is a license that at least allows you redistribution. Calling
it names for that is disingenuous, to say the least. It's like calling
the common cold nasty names because unlike Ebola, it does not have the
decency to leave its victims dead.
Do you call the Microsoft EULA a contaminant or virus? It allows
Microsoft to remotely destroy your computer and data without your
agreement or compensation if they think it useful in order to try
implementing new Digital Rights Management schemes on your hardware.
The "Windows Genuine Advantage" program shut down ten thousands of
perfectly legal installations remotely when going wrong. Microsoft
tried to fix this in a few weeks, simply because it was bad press. But
they were _covered_ by the license. If they had decided to simply let
all those computers remain broken without even trying to fix the
problem, the license would have permitted them to do so.
Of course, they would not have liked to have this made into a class
action suite since it is not in their interest to have their license
poison examined too closely in the light of the actual consequences.
People are fine with licenses that essentially allow rootkitting and
bricking your computer. And use the term "viral" for the GPL.
That's simply successful brainwashing by the content industry
propaganda.
There's no advantage in pretending it isn't, whether or not
one agrees
with the policy.
If commerce complains about the viral nature of the GPL, the right
answer is to say "yes, and this is why: ....".
The right answer is "how are any of the GPL's terms more restricting
than those of software licenses you don't call names?". And of course
tell commerce "if you don't like the consequences of copyright, don't
complain about the GPL. Lobby your favorite politician to make
copyright laws and their extensions less absurd, and the GPL will have
less impact on your business along with the rest of those licenses."
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:17 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
> Why? The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed to
> behave like a contaminant (or virus, if you prefer).
Nonsense. If there is anything acting like a contaminant or virus, it
is copyright. You can't integrate or redistribute _any_ software from
third parties short of an explicit license.
David, please switch off your emotional commitment, and turn on your
intellect.
The world would be a very nice place if contaminants and viruses were
things that prevented their own redistribution. We'd never get ill, or
poisoned! The common cold would not exist!
The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed so that
incorporating a piece of GPL code into any other distributed piece of
software makes that software have the GPL. The virus analogy is quite
simply a good analogy. Don't get hung up on the fact that some viruses
are nasty. Some are beneficial.
The viral nature doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. I distribute
my own software under the GPL too, for convenience. But if anybody
asks me, they can negotiate other licences - BSD, for example. They
can even pay me money for it!
Do you call the Microsoft EULA a contaminant or virus? It allows
Microsoft to remotely destroy your computer and data without your
agreement or compensation if they think it useful in order to try
implementing new Digital Rights Management schemes on your hardware.
It doesn't self-replicate, and it doesn't impose its own terms on
other companies' EULAs.
I really don't care what Windows users sign up to in order to use
their favourite operating system, and it's not relevant.
People are fine with licenses that essentially allow rootkitting and
bricking your computer.
Not my problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to use Windows.
If they don't mind, whom am I to tell them they should?
The right answer is "how are any of the GPL's terms more
restricting
than those of software licenses you don't call names?". And of course
GPL is more restrictive than BSD. BSD does not require you to release
your own software under BSD if you incorporate BSD software.
Do you deny that?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:52 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
>> Why? The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed to
>> behave like a contaminant (or virus, if you prefer).
>
> Nonsense. If there is anything acting like a contaminant or virus, it
> is copyright. You can't integrate or redistribute _any_ software from
> third parties short of an explicit license.
David, please switch off your emotional commitment, and turn on your
intellect.
The world would be a very nice place if contaminants and viruses were
things that prevented their own redistribution. We'd never get ill, or
poisoned! The common cold would not exist!
The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed so that
incorporating a piece of GPL code into any other distributed piece of
software makes that software have the GPL.
No, that is simply wrong. The GPL is carefully, deliberately and
explicitly designed so that you can only redistribute software based on
the GPL under the GPL, or not at all. Since the normal software
licenses are designed such that you can't redistribute software at all
in the first place, the GPL "infection" does not change the resulting
situation one bit.
You are free to extend GPLed software with software of your _own_. If
you choose to license the resulting whole under the GPL, you can
redistribute it. If you choose not to license the resulting whole under
the GPL, you can use it for any purpose you like except redistribution.
There is _no_, I repeat, _no_ automatism with which any software of
yours comes under the GPL magically. There is no infection. If _you_
choose to infect the GPLed software with material that you never want to
be licensed under the GPL, the result is simply sterile (namely you
can't redistribute it), but still functional.
But the GPL does _not_, I repeat _not_, magically extend to software
that you don't want to have it extend to. If _you_ don't choose to
license your own pieces of software under the GPL, they will not be
licensed under the GPL, period.
In contrast to contaminating your software with the usual propriatary
licensed stuff, you will _still_ be allowed to run and use it yourself
for any purpose you want. In contrast to proprietary licensed stuff,
you retain the option _if_ _you_ _want_ _to_ to relicense the combined
software under the GPL and redistribute it.
You don't need to, and you still will be able to do anything with your
software that a combination with proprietary software will let you do,
most likely more.
The virus analogy is quite simply a good analogy. Don't get hung
up on
the fact that some viruses are nasty. Some are beneficial.
The point in verbiage like "virus" or "contamination" is that
something
happens that is not under your control, with bad consequences. With GPL
licensed software, everything remains under your control. It is _your_
personal option whether you want to make use of the rights granted by
the GPL (but not by proprietary licenses) or not.
No "infection" or "contamination" is involved here. Your software
will
_never_ be licensed anything other than that which you _explicitly_
license it under. There is no automatism.
The viral nature doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. I
distribute
my own software under the GPL too, for convenience. But if anybody
asks me, they can negotiate other licences - BSD, for example. They
can even pay me money for it!
An infection/contamination which you can switch on and off at will even
after first full contact. Don't you really see how _absurdly_ you have
been swallowed in by licensing propaganda?
> Do you call the Microsoft EULA a contaminant or virus? It
allows
> Microsoft to remotely destroy your computer and data without your
> agreement or compensation if they think it useful in order to try
> implementing new Digital Rights Management schemes on your hardware.
It doesn't self-replicate, and it doesn't impose its own terms on
other companies' EULAs.
Neither does the GPL. So where is your point?
> People are fine with licenses that essentially allow rootkitting
and
> bricking your computer.
Not my problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to use Windows.
If they don't mind, whom am I to tell them they should?
Who am you to tell them that licenses that can have all the ill effects
of computer viruses and worse are _not_ a virus, while a license that
does not, _is_?
> The right answer is "how are any of the GPL's terms more
restricting
> than those of software licenses you don't call names?". And of
> course
GPL is more restrictive than BSD. BSD does not require you to release
your own software under BSD if you incorporate BSD software.
Do you deny that?
Where is the point if a license does not require me to heed any terms,
but if I actually use those permissions in order to slap the GPL on
software derived from it, everybody will be calling me an immoral pig
and thief?
It's more honest if I get to hear and read the conditions under which I
am _supposed_ to use the software up front.
It is obvious that you are not inclined thinking about who to call what
for what reason. But probably somebody else will think twice before
following your example.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:17 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
On 2/15/2011 6:52 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Julian Bradfield<jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
> On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup<dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
>> Julian Bradfield<jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
>>
My view on these license wars just to be somewhat more pragmatic. One of the
things that contributed to my disability was participating in license wars and
arguing about the benefits of one form of licensing versus another. High
emotion, angry typing all contributed to damaging my hands. From this insight, I
learned that in the short-term licenses don't matter. People ignore them and you
either want to get some software released or you want to argue. If you want to
get some software released, you're engaging in productive activity. If you want
to argue, you are keeping others and yourself from engaging in productive
activities. In the long term, licensing doesn't matter because we are all dead.
I'm probably closer to that than the rest of you and I simply want to get things
done.
As I said when I introduced myself, I'm here because Stallman (not his
licensing) said that there was no way I could create a bridge between
NaturallySpeaking and Emacs that he could support. here, folks were far more
pragmatic and seem to be okay with a bridge forming a IP barrier between the two
worlds which was a welcome relief from fanaticism. We need to carry that lack of
fanaticism forward into licensing domain.
My request is to take the energy you're putting into arguments on on the
licensing and get the next revision out. I'm looking forward to getting some
small tasks that I can use to help teach me something about the build process of
XEmacs and contribute to the next release in some small way. let's try to move
forward and not circle the drain with arguments that were old shortly after the
introduction of the GPL.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:21 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
"Eric S. Johansson" <esj(a)harvee.org> writes:
On 2/15/2011 6:52 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Julian Bradfield<jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
>
>> On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup<dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Julian Bradfield<jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
>>>
My view on these license wars just to be somewhat more pragmatic. One
of the things that contributed to my disability was participating in
license wars and arguing about the benefits of one form of licensing
versus another. High emotion, angry typing all contributed to damaging
my hands.
Refraining from unwarranted name-calling and wild analogies should help.
If things don't look bad enough without applying lots of hyperbole, then
one should question one's urge to turn on the hyperbole tap.
Something like <URL:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx>
does not require hyperbole for looking bad.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:49 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
> The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed so that
> incorporating a piece of GPL code into any other distributed piece of
> software makes that software have the GPL.
No, that is simply wrong. The GPL is carefully, deliberately and
explicitly designed so that you can only redistribute software based on
the GPL under the GPL, or not at all.
Er, that's what I said. If you include GPL code, and distribute your
software, it must be under the GPL. And it's not "based on". The GPL
defines a modified work as anything that involves copying in a sense
controlled by copyright law. Ten lines of code suffices - even one, in
theory in the UK. That's why Stephen is being so careful about GPLv3.
There is _no_, I repeat, _no_ automatism with which any software of
yours comes under the GPL magically. There is no infection. If _you_
choose to infect the GPLed software with material that you never want to
Infection is infection, whether accidental or deliberate. Maybe you
should read up on how genetic engineering is done. A major technique
is deliberate and controllable infection by viruses.
You don't need to, and you still will be able to do anything with
your
software that a combination with proprietary software will let you do,
most likely more.
Such as distributed closed-source software and charging for licensing?
An infection/contamination which you can switch on and off at will
even
after first full contact.
Yes. See genetic engineering above - damn useful concept.
But the only reason I can do that is that I write all my own code (for
the projects in question), and don't re-use anybody else's, and only
rely on LGPL libraries.
Who am you to tell them that licenses that can have all the ill
effects
of computer viruses and worse are _not_ a virus, while a license that
does not, _is_?
I am one who know the difference between the denotation of a word and
its connotations.
>> The right answer is "how are any of the GPL's terms
more restricting
>> than those of software licenses you don't call names?". And of
>> course
>
> GPL is more restrictive than BSD. BSD does not require you to release
> your own software under BSD if you incorporate BSD software.
>
> Do you deny that?
No, you don't.
Where is the point if a license does not require me to heed any
terms,
but if I actually use those permissions in order to slap the GPL on
software derived from it, everybody will be calling me an immoral pig
and thief?
Er, the BSD license allows you do that. Why would anybody call you an
immoral pig and a thief? The whole point of BSD is to allow people to
use software freely, whether they want to push a proprietary agenda or
an FSF agenda, or just want to get on with the job.
It is obvious that you are not inclined thinking about who to call
what
for what reason. But probably somebody else will think twice before
following your example.
You should stop getting so excited about an off the cuff comment on a
small (usually) friendly mailing list expressing my distaste for the
immense waste of XEmacs developer time caused by the GPL2 -> GPL3
transition.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:36 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
>> The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed so that
>> incorporating a piece of GPL code into any other distributed piece of
>> software makes that software have the GPL.
>
> No, that is simply wrong. The GPL is carefully, deliberately and
> explicitly designed so that you can only redistribute software based on
> the GPL under the GPL, or not at all.
Er, that's what I said.
But that's not what "viral" or "contaminate" implies. Those terms
imply
some action _not_ under control and will of the coder. They also imply
some unexpected restriction. But the _expected_ outcome using
"non-viral" "non-contaminating" code is that you may neither
distribute
nor even run the resulting code. What is more of a contamination: that
which renders almost all sensible uses of code moot, or that which tells
you you can do everything you expect, and _additionally_ can pass the
resulting code as long as you don't change the conditions under which
you received it?
If you include GPL code, and distribute your software, it must be
under the GPL. And it's not "based on". The GPL defines a modified
work as anything that involves copying in a sense controlled by
copyright law.
The GPL does not define copyright law.
Ten lines of code suffices - even one, in theory in the UK.
That's why
Stephen is being so careful about GPLv3.
Sure, but the reason is not that the GPL is viral or contaminating, but
that copyright law is an abomination. He'd have to be careful about any
other license.
> There is _no_, I repeat, _no_ automatism with which any software
of
> yours comes under the GPL magically. There is no infection. If
> _you_ choose to infect the GPLed software with material that you
> never want to
Infection is infection, whether accidental or deliberate. Maybe you
should read up on how genetic engineering is done. A major technique
is deliberate and controllable infection by viruses.
> You don't need to, and you still will be able to do anything with your
> software that a combination with proprietary software will let you do,
> most likely more.
Such as distributed closed-source software and charging for licensing?
Oh, that's normal with proprietary software licenses? Interesting. So
show me, say, the modified versions and forks of Microsoft Word that get
distributed legally like XEmacs, a fork of Emacs.
> An infection/contamination which you can switch on and off at
will
> even after first full contact.
Yes. See genetic engineering above - damn useful concept.
Sorry, but you don't just "uninfect" or "uncontaminate" during
genetic
engineering if you feel like it.
But the only reason I can do that is that I write all my own code
(for
the projects in question), and don't re-use anybody else's, and only
rely on LGPL libraries.
But you place parts into XEmacs. According to your word use, that
should infect and contaminate them.
> Who am you to tell them that licenses that can have all the ill
> effects of computer viruses and worse are _not_ a virus, while a
> license that does not, _is_?
I am one who know the difference between the denotation of a word and
its connotations.
So what point is there in throwing around bad insinuation which _you_
know to be inappropriate?
> Where is the point if a license does not require me to heed any
> terms, but if I actually use those permissions in order to slap the
> GPL on software derived from it, everybody will be calling me an
> immoral pig and thief?
Er, the BSD license allows you do that. Why would anybody call you an
immoral pig and a thief?
Excellent question.
The whole point of BSD is to allow people to use software freely,
whether they want to push a proprietary agenda or an FSF agenda, or
just want to get on with the job.
You'll find that this is not the normal BSD proponent's opinion. They
are not bothered about proprietary rereleases, but are quite annoyed to
see parts of their software crop up in GPLed software.
You should stop getting so excited about an off the cuff comment on
a
small (usually) friendly mailing list expressing my distaste for the
immense waste of XEmacs developer time caused by the GPL2 -> GPL3
transition.
That problem is not caused by any "virality" or "contamination" of
the
GPL3. It is caused by the GPL3 being incompatible with the GPL2, and
the XEmacs developers prefer to continue making use of upstream Emacs
code. If the GPL2 were bidirectionally compatible with the GPL3, the
licensing situation would mean that future versions could only become
weaker than earlier versions regarding the legal protection against
unwanted uses. Pretty pointless.
Yes, this is a nuisance for XEmacs development. But it is not like
there was any unexpected element or malice involved in it. It was bound
to happen, and calling people names for following through with what was
well-known in advance and which one did not bother preparing for in time
is not going to help in shouldering the necessary changes.
The more you repeat the propaganda of proprietary software proponent,
the more harm you do to Stephen and the XEmacs community for arriving at
a version of XEmacs that does everything you can expect it to do given
the available material upstream.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:06 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
/delurk
At 16:36 Uhr +0100 15.02.2011, David Kastrup wrote:
> The whole point of BSD is to allow people to use software
freely,
> whether they want to push a proprietary agenda or an FSF agenda, or
> just want to get on with the job.
You'll find that this is not the normal BSD proponent's opinion. They
are not bothered about proprietary rereleases, but are quite annoyed to
see parts of their software crop up in GPLed software.
... stripped of the respective BSD license, as you failed to add. Because
that's the usual problem in those cases[1].
In fact, the two-clause BSD license was designed precisely to be
interoperable with the GPL.
hauke
[1] See e.g. <http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html>
--
The ASCII Ribbon Campaign Hauke Fath
() No HTML/RTF in email Institut für Nachrichtentechnik
/\ No Word docs in email TU Darmstadt
Respect for open standards Ruf +49-6151-16-3281
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
Hauke Fath writes:
... stripped of the respective BSD license, as you failed to
add. Because that's the usual problem in those cases[1].
Please don't spread FUD. The case you cite is not a "usual" problem
with incorporation of BSD code in a GPL project. It is apparently
infringement, pure and simple, and would be so regardless of the
license applied later. OTOH, the GPL advocates I know are happy to
maintain copyright and permissions notices, and would be horrified by
this case (at least because it provide FUD fodder). In most cases, as
a matter of principle, and in any case, the BSD notice hardly matters,
since in most practical cases it is infeasible to disentangle the new,
GPL code from the old, BSD code, so effectively it's all GPL. (Cf.
the (no) permission notice in the old O'Reilly "X Window System"
series.)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:26 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
[Context restored]
At 3:00 Uhr +0900 16.02.2011, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
At 17:06 Uhr +0100 15.02.2011, Hauke Fath wrote:
>At 16:36 Uhr +0100 15.02.2011, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> The whole point of BSD is to allow people to use software freely,
>>> whether they want to push a proprietary agenda or an FSF agenda, or
>>> just want to get on with the job.
>>
>>You'll find that this is not the normal BSD proponent's opinion. They
>>are not bothered about proprietary rereleases, but are quite annoyed to
>>see parts of their software crop up in GPLed software.
>
> ... stripped of the respective BSD license, as you failed to
> add. Because that's the usual problem in those cases[1].
Please don't spread FUD. The case you cite is not a "usual" problem
with incorporation of BSD code in a GPL project.
Right.
But that's not what I said - although the way you snipped the context makes
it look like that.
It is a usual problem, though, _when_ "BSD proponents" get "quite annoyed
with incorporation of BSD code in a GPL project", as David put it.
As I mentioned, and you snipped,
the two-clause BSD license was designed precisely to be
interoperable with the GPL.
so the gist of the BSD license, "don't blame me, if it breaks; give credit
where credit is due; besides that, do what you want with the code" of
course extends to GPLed projects.
hauke
--
The ASCII Ribbon Campaign Hauke Fath
() No HTML/RTF in email Institut für Nachrichtentechnik
/\ No Word docs in email TU Darmstadt
Respect for open standards Ruf +49-6151-16-3281
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
Hauke Fath writes:
But that's not what I said - although the way you snipped the
context makes
it look like that.
No, even with context your phrasing was ambiguous. I merely chose the
interpretation that is consonant with my understanding of the facts.
It is a usual problem, though, _when_ "BSD proponents" get
"quite
annoyed with incorporation of BSD code in a GPL project", as David
put it.
Not in my experience, although the experience is perhaps biased. It
was gained in fora where BSDers' sense of "freedom" collides with that
of FSFers, such as Russ Nelson's Free Software Business list.
It was *very* common in those fora for BSDers to talk about the
unfreedom of copyleft and the unfairness of the way GNU sucks in
permissively licensed software and returns nothing to the wider
community including non-GPL projects. Stallman's penchant for
demanding that "GNU" be prefixed to every use of the word "Linux" not
followed by "kernel", while failing to mention the contributions to
the GNU System by Larry Wall, Don Knuth, MIT/X Consortium, Aladdin
Enterprises, and of course the BSD developers was another big
irritant.
On the contrary, I have never heard a BSDer say "If you would just
tell your damn camp followers to preserve copyright notices when they
copy our stuff into GPL projects, there'd be no problem." Surely that
would be a lie! And worry about copyright notices certainly doesn't
account for the EAY copyleft clause in OpenSSL.
I'm sorry, but I really don't think the annoyance being discussed here
is imaginary, nor is it about stripped copyright notices. True,
*some*, perhaps the majority of BSDers only care about the notices.
But there is always that vocal minority.... And I have definitely
seen FSFers (who as far as I know never have stripped copyright
notices) under the kinds of attack that David describes and
(incorrectly) attributed to Julian.
Note: I have normally espoused the BSD position on freedom
(essentially, "you can't force people to be free, but you can give
them permission, the more permission, the better") in such
discussions. However, I don't think it's good for advocates of that
position to gloss over the fact that there's a real philosophical
difference that (at least some of us) really care about, as much as
the FSF camp does about their position. And that being human,
sometimes we trash-talk our opponents.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:27 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
> Regarding Re: future of quail; "Stephen J. Turnbull"
<stephen(a)xemacs.org> adds:
Hauke Fath writes:
Not in my experience, although the experience is
perhaps biased. It was gained in fora where BSDers'
sense of "freedom" collides with that of FSFers, such
as Russ Nelson's Free Software Business list.
It was *very* common in those fora for BSDers to talk about the
unfreedom of copyleft and the unfairness of the way GNU sucks in
permissively licensed software and returns nothing to the wider
community including non-GPL projects. Stallman's penchant for
demanding that "GNU" be prefixed to every use of the word "Linux"
not
followed by "kernel", while failing to mention the contributions to
the GNU System by Larry Wall, Don Knuth, MIT/X Consortium, Aladdin
Enterprises, and of course the BSD developers was another big
irritant.
Well may be I am too pragmatic for this discussion. But I
thought a way of looking at it, is:
BSD allows its code to be "stolen" by a commercial product
(Mac X comes into my mind), while GPL does not allow you
this.
In a way GPL is "more capitalistic" then BSD,
as in:
"you like my code" take it but pay for it "by
redistributing it with the same license".
I found the GPL idea more coherent and just even if it comes
sometimes at a price, like the headache caused by a
GPL2->GPL3 transition.
Uwe Brauer
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:46 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
Uwe Brauer writes:
BSD allows its code to be "stolen" by a commercial product
(Mac X comes into my mind), while GPL does not allow you
this.
Great example -- but *for* BSD, the way BSD is supposed to work.
Darwin, the part of Mac OS X that's based on Mach (the kernel) and
FreeBSD (drivers and userland) is *free software*, at least the parts
I've hacked on are.
It's the GUI that is proprietary, but AFAIK the GUI doesn't have free
software in it. Except for Xquartz, which again is free software.
That doesn't mean Steve Jobs wouldn't take it all proprietary if he
thought he could make a few pennies that way, but it isn't a bad deal
at the price (USD 0.00) right now.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:27 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
But that's not what "viral" or "contaminate" implies. Those
terms imply
some action _not_ under control and will of the coder. They also imply
some unexpected restriction. But the _expected_ outcome using
"non-viral" "non-contaminating" code is that you may neither
distribute
nor even run the resulting code. What is more of a contamination: that
You must be buying the wrong licences for your commercial code.
> If you include GPL code, and distribute your software, it must
be
> under the GPL. And it's not "based on". The GPL defines a modified
> work as anything that involves copying in a sense controlled by
> copyright law.
The GPL does not define copyright law.
I don't understand your point.
Sure, but the reason is not that the GPL is viral or contaminating,
but
that copyright law is an abomination. He'd have to be careful about any
other license.
I'm quite happy to agree that copyright law is a mess, and personally
I think we could do without it entirely, and I'm happy to campaign for
its abolition. "Abomination" suggests a quasi-religious moralistic
mentality which I don't share.
> Such as distributed closed-source software and charging for
licensing?
Oh, that's normal with proprietary software licenses? Interesting. So
Yes. You want to use a widget kit for your proprietary software, you
go and buy a developers' licence for a proprietary widget set. It will
allow you to distribute and sell your software under your own terms,
as long as you don't infringe on their rights, and may or may not
allow you to include a users' licence for the kit in your
product. Motif was a well known example in the Unix world until it
went open.
show me, say, the modified versions and forks of Microsoft Word that
get
distributed legally like XEmacs, a fork of Emacs.
As far as I'm aware, Microsoft doesn't sell licences that allow
this. They're a very possessive company. In the good old days, people
used to distribute modifications for IBM mainframe operating systems -
admittedly more because IBM hadn't yet realized they could charge
money for software than hardware.
Sorry, but you don't just "uninfect" or
"uncontaminate" during genetic
engineering if you feel like it.
Possibly the analogy is getting a bit stretched. I'm sure that within
a few years you will - that is, there will viruses engineered with an
easy kill-switch in them. It's already a DARPA project.
> But the only reason I can do that is that I write all my own code
(for
> the projects in question), and don't re-use anybody else's, and only
> rely on LGPL libraries.
But you place parts into XEmacs. According to your word use, that
should infect and contaminate them.
Any code I submit to XEmacs is of course GPLed. It's all so trivial
that I wouldn't even bother to claim ownership. I *could* release the
code fragments under some other licence, but what sense would that make?
I'm talking about my own projects, not XEmacs.
So what point is there in throwing around bad insinuation which
_you_
know to be inappropriate?
It's called "bonding". Mutual disparagement is a common technique,
at least among males (*are* there any women on this list?). Listen
in any playground, locker-room or club. Disparaging outsiders is an even
commoner one, especially the "outsiders" from the next village -
that's why the XEmacs source is stuffed full of obscene insults to the
FSF. I think the current developers are all too nice and too
professional to do that, but I'm not so nice, and I've been reading an
awful lot of that code recently.
You'll find that this is not the normal BSD proponent's
opinion. They
are not bothered about proprietary rereleases, but are quite annoyed to
see parts of their software crop up in GPLed software.
With the BSD licence satisfied, or not?
Yes, this is a nuisance for XEmacs development. But it is not like
It would be much more of a nuisance for me. If I wanted to include a
single piece of GPL3 code, I would have to do all the work on the 21.4
codebase that Stephen and co. do on the 21.5 codebase in order to release
my fork (which I do intend to do once it has all the features I
consider essential). And then SXEmacs would be unable to use it if
they wanted to.
This is, as you say, because of the incompatibility, but that
incompatibility is contaminatory in nature because the GPL is required
to apply at the level of program, rather than at the level of module
or source file. Again, a deliberate decision to ensure that the GPL
spreads anywhere it is planted (to use Stallman's preferred analogy).
He said "spider plant"; others might use "giant hogweed" or "cane
toad".
The more you repeat the propaganda of proprietary software
proponent,
the more harm you do to Stephen and the XEmacs community for arriving at
a version of XEmacs that does everything you can expect it to do given
the available material upstream.
I'm not really interested in upstream. I'm not a heavy emacs user, I
just use it for editing (multilingual) text and mail. As I have said,
21.4 did everything I need apart from Unicode.
It doesn't appear to me that Emacs is going anywhere fast, either.
They are mature pieces of software.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:56 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield writes:
It would be much more of a nuisance for me. If I wanted to include a
single piece of GPL3 code, I would have to do all the work on the 21.4
codebase that Stephen and co. do on the 21.5 codebase in order to release
my fork (which I do intend to do once it has all the features I
consider essential). And then SXEmacs would be unable to use it if
they wanted to.
Erm, SXEmacs has been GPLv3 for more than three years now. AFAIK,
they didn't bother to do the work that we've done on checking
authorship and permissions; they just changed the notices and assumed
that nobody would care. That's very probably true, except that we're
on the FSF's radar in a way that SXEmacs is not (yet, anyway) so I
didn't want to risk it.
It doesn't appear to me that Emacs is going anywhere fast,
either.
They are mature pieces of software.
No, I don't think any of the Emacsen are currently going anywhere
fast. TeXmacs is an interesting variant, but TeX is also too *cough*
"mature" to be easily mated to Emacs in a flexible, programmable way.
I have some other possibilities in mind (Emacs with native access to
enhanced[1] git repos for one; an AJAX/SVG redisplay for another), but
they're years from implementation if I have to do them. :-)
Footnotes:
[1] Sub-file blobs, eg, what Emacs modes think of as defuns. Then
consider the possibilities for refactoring.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:11 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
Erm, SXEmacs has been GPLv3 for more than three years now. AFAIK,
Oh!
fast. TeXmacs is an interesting variant, but TeX is also too *cough*
"mature" to be easily mated to Emacs in a flexible, programmable way.
I wasn't aware of it. I'm not entirely sure I see what it's for!
But then, I don't do WYSIanything. (OK, I sometimes use xfig.)
Some of the modern variants are TeX are quite interesting, but not
quite interesting enough to actually use if you need to get work done.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:24 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield writes:
>fast. TeXmacs is an interesting variant, but TeX is also too
*cough*
>"mature" to be easily mated to Emacs in a flexible, programmable way.
I wasn't aware of it. I'm not entirely sure I see what it's for!
I've tried to use it for live updates to mathematical presentations in
Emacs. Thing is, when you want to type the math as you think and have
the computer do the formatting, there is no substitute for TeX.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:34 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Julian Bradfield writes:
> >fast. TeXmacs is an interesting variant, but TeX is also too *cough*
> >"mature" to be easily mated to Emacs in a flexible, programmable
way.
>
> I wasn't aware of it. I'm not entirely sure I see what it's for!
I've tried to use it for live updates to mathematical presentations in
Emacs. Thing is, when you want to type the math as you think and have
the computer do the formatting, there is no substitute for TeX.
Some early preview-latex code has been reused (possibly at some point
rewritten) in some computer algebra system interface in Emacs. I don't
remember which mode and system this was, but the result would have been
"live updates".
It would be interesting to integrate something like this into Emacs
calc.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:29 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
David Kastrup writes:
It would be interesting to integrate something like this into Emacs
calc.
Indeed, but calc was not sufficient for my needs. I really wanted a
realtime presentation software. TeXmacs was very close, but too slow,
too clumsy, and I never really figured out how to paginate
appropriately. I'm pretty sure all of that was my fault ;-), but
given time available it was easier to go back to static presentations
using ordinary TeX, and do any corrections between lectures.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:25 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
>> Such as distributed closed-source software and charging for licensing?
>
> Oh, that's normal with proprietary software licenses? Interesting. So
Yes. You want to use a widget kit for your proprietary software, you
go and buy a developers' licence for a proprietary widget set. It will
allow you to distribute and sell your software under your own terms,
Including complete readable source code for the whole application
including the widget set?
So that porting to any other platform is a matter of recompiling?
> So what point is there in throwing around bad insinuation which
_you_
> know to be inappropriate?
It's called "bonding". Mutual disparagement is a common technique,
at least among males (*are* there any women on this list?).
I am grateful to Stephen that he worked on banning that kind of bonding
from XEmacs web sites and documentation. And it was definitely harming
XEmacs because it was teaching attitudes that led to bad blood when
XEmacs developers needed to communicate with upstream. I've witnessed
several communications ending up horribly bad to the detriment of XEmacs
because of the consequences of this bonding.
Listen in any playground, locker-room or club. Disparaging outsiders
is an even commoner one, especially the "outsiders" from the next
village - that's why the XEmacs source is stuffed full of obscene
insults to the FSF. I think the current developers are all too nice
and too professional to do that, but I'm not so nice, and I've been
reading an awful lot of that code recently.
The one thing impressing me immensively is that Stephen is _not_ himself
of the post-war generation and attitude. And still did a remarkable job
reintroducing sanity. Without sacrificing his dignity.
I don't have the self-control for that. But I respect what he achieves
in that category, and I hate seeing his work sabotaged.
I'm not really interested in upstream.
Others are, don't make it harder for them.
I'm not a heavy emacs user, I just use it for editing
(multilingual)
text and mail. As I have said, 21.4 did everything I need apart from
Unicode.
Unicode is not exactly trivial. Lots of headstart on Emacs' site, not
least of all since MULE was stuffed into Emacs when it was far from
mature, causing the last large migration to XEmacs I am aware of.
It doesn't appear to me that Emacs is going anywhere fast,
either.
Development has picked up impressively since Richard Stallman has
stepped down as maintainer.
They are mature pieces of software.
Emacs has pretty solid right-to-left support in the development
versions, and there are things happening in the area of the Lisp machine
(parallelism, closures) that are interesting as well. And lots of stuff
across the board, and good desktop integration into Gnome desktops, and
better support for MacOSX and Windows than XEmacs has.
Not all of that is sensibly integrable into XEmacs, but some approaches
and experiences could still be helpful.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:29 a.m.
New subject: future of quail
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
> On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
>> Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
>>> Such as distributed closed-source software and charging for licensing?
>> Oh, that's normal with proprietary software licenses? Interesting. So
> Yes. You want to use a widget kit for your proprietary software, you
> go and buy a developers' licence for a proprietary widget set. It will
> allow you to distribute and sell your software under your own terms,
Including complete readable source code for the whole application
including the widget set?
Ah. I've just noticed that we have been at cross-purposes, because I
didn't type what I intended to say. I intended to say "distribut*ing*
closed-source software" - i.e. what closed source libraries give over
GPL is the freedom to distribute your software closed source and for
money. I wasn't talking about what you get in the way of source for
the libraries you're using.
The one thing impressing me immensively is that Stephen is _not_
himself
of the post-war generation and attitude. And still did a remarkable job
reintroducing sanity. Without sacrificing his dignity.
I entirely agree.
Unicode is not exactly trivial. Lots of headstart on Emacs'
site, not
I know. It took me several weeks' work to switch 21.4 to unicode, just
at the basic level. Full Unicode conformance is a *long* way off.
Emacs has pretty solid right-to-left support in the development
I started thinking about bidi, but I don't yet have a significant need
for it. If I ever get round to learning Arabic...
versions, and there are things happening in the area of the Lisp
machine
(parallelism, closures) that are interesting as well. And lots of stuff
Ah, but are they useful.
across the board, and good desktop integration into Gnome desktops,
and
better support for MacOSX and Windows than XEmacs has.
Since I don't use Gnome, MacOSX or Windows, that's not of much concern
to me.
It's knowing what of the "stuff across the board" is actually useful
that I find hard. Like finding out what packages are useful. I know
there are thousands of purportedly useful Emacs packages, but I don't
use any of them.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:40 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield writes:
Er, that's what I said. If you include GPL code, and distribute
your
software, it must be under the GPL.
Clearly, it requires the consent and cooperation of the patient. Ie,
"virus" is too generic. We're talking about STDs here. "Was it good
for you, too?" :-)
Er, the BSD license allows you do that. Why would anybody call you
an
immoral pig and a thief? The whole point of BSD is to allow people to
use software freely, whether they want to push a proprietary agenda or
an FSF agenda, or just want to get on with the job.
C'mon, Julian, be fair. Surely you are aware that in fact some people
*do* talk that way, even today (even though you did no such thing,
others do). Use for profit is OK; use by the FSF is not.
IMO, it has quite a bit to do with the fact that the author and most
visible advocate of the FSF agenda is among the first to use words
like "immoral" and "thief", not to forget "backslider",
"hoarder",
"slavery", and "traitor". That's not David, but I'm not
surprised
he's had to deal with the spatter when that kind of mud hits the fan.
However, there was also, historically, quite a bit of bitching and
moaning about Linux borrowing stuff from BSD kernels while the reverse
was not permissible under the GPL. So what's permitted by the license
and what's expected of advocates of software freedom are not the same,
not limited to the FSF.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5:02 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
"virus" is too generic. We're talking about STDs here.
"Was it good
I will resist the temptation to develop the analogy any further!
> Er, the BSD license allows you do that. Why would anybody call
you an
> immoral pig and a thief? The whole point of BSD is to allow people to
> use software freely, whether they want to push a proprietary agenda or
> an FSF agenda, or just want to get on with the job.
C'mon, Julian, be fair. Surely you are aware that in fact some people
*do* talk that way, even today (even though you did no such thing,
others do). Use for profit is OK; use by the FSF is not.
Actually, I wasn't aware. I don't spend much (any) time hanging out in
the kind of places where this would be discussed. xemacs-beta is the
only developers' list I read all the time; all the others I just dip
in when I have a bug to report or a patch to submit.
However, there was also, historically, quite a bit of bitching and
moaning about Linux borrowing stuff from BSD kernels while the reverse
was not permissible under the GPL.
Yes - it's kind of immoral to take someone's free software and
improve it with restrictions that mean they can't use your changes,
isn't it;-?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5:18 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
[Stephen:]
>However, there was also, historically, quite a bit of bitching
and
>moaning about Linux borrowing stuff from BSD kernels while the reverse
>was not permissible under the GPL.
Yes - it's kind of immoral to take someone's free software and
improve it with restrictions that mean they can't use your changes,
isn't it;-?
Which the GPL puts a stop to, and mostly successful. Some people don't
like the particular position of the stop.
It's about the situation that the FSF saw itself to be in with regard to
Lucid Emacs code: because of their own copyright assignment policies,
they were quite unable to fold back changes by people with different
views and standards.
That situation amounted in a fair bit of bitching and moaning as well.
Which was not particularly helpful with regard to the overall working
atmosphere.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:25 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
David Kastrup writes:
It's about the situation that the FSF saw itself to be in with
regard to
Lucid Emacs code: because of their own copyright assignment policies,
they were quite unable to fold back changes by people with different
views and standards.
Indeed it is exactly that kind of hypocrisy that I find most
distasteful about FSF-ism. A project uses a modified BSD license,
which the FSF takes advantage of to incorporate in a GPLed project,
making it *illegal* for the original project to use GPLed improvements
unless they make a *permanent* change in their licensing.
This is very different from the situation of Emacs vis-a-vis XEmacs,
where (a) Emacs can legally make an exception for any piece of code it
likes without changing either its license or its normal assignment
policy, and (b) much XEmacs code is in any case owned by the FSF (eg,
all XEmacs code I've authored is), but the FSF is unwilling to do a
little research to find out whether a particular desirable feature is
already owned by the FSF, or could easily be acquired. In many cases
10 minutes with "$VCS annotate" would be sufficient to determine
whether it's worth following up to authors for confirmation and/or
additional assignments.
Nevertheless, incorporating BSD-licensed content in a GPL project is
not infringement, and AFAICS not unethical, merely uncooperative.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5:32 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:02:17PM +0000, Julian Bradfield wrote:
>However, there was also, historically, quite a bit of bitching
and
>moaning about Linux borrowing stuff from BSD kernels while the reverse
>was not permissible under the GPL.
Yes - it's kind of immoral to take someone's free software and
improve it with restrictions that mean they can't use your changes,
isn't it;-?
if you follow this logic, the BSD tcp/ip stack was also borrowed by Microsoft
and used as the basis of Windows 2000 networking code.
Not only did not anything flow back into BSD and Microsoft is obviously not
allowing anyone to reuse the code at all. Just looking at Microsofts code might
taint you in the sense that you can no longer contribute to any free project
without fear that if you use anything that is even remotely similar to the
original BSD ehm Microsoft code could bring the project into legal trouble.
This kind of issues is for me the biggest drawback of BSD liek licenses.
Richard
---
Name and OpenPGP keys available from pgp key servers
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:23 p.m.
New subject: future of quail
Julian Bradfield writes:
On 2011-02-15, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
> Aidan Kehoe writes:
> > I’d accept it, and be happy to commit it.
> Not until we have a GPLv3 release, you may not commit it.
When I said bring a few features of FSF into ours, I didn't mean by
copying code; just by achieving compatibitility, which would also
enable me to take a similar approach to FSF.
OK, my bad. But please say "this is all my code" or "this is a GPLv2
implementation from Emacs 2x" or whatever when you submit.
I don't want my own fork contaminated by GPL3!
I wouldn't worry about that too much; GPLv2 Emacsen are unlikely to
evolve further, and I doubt your code will get incorporated into the
Linux kernel. :-) GPLv3 terms don't have really horrible disadvantages
vis-a-vis GPLv2's, and there are claimed advantages (but you'd need
to be a real lawyer or maybe live in Germany to evaluate that; they're
nowhere near as obviously useful as copyleft itself is).
Of course, that's up to you, and free advice is typically worth what
you paid for it. But FWIW that's my advice. :-)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4810
days inactive
4812
days old
29 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
David Kastrup -
Eric S. Johansson -
Hauke Fath -
Julian Bradfield -
Richard -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Uwe Brauer