9:16 a.m.
On Friday 17 August 2007, SL Baur wrote:
XEmacs is copyrighted GPL v1 or later.
I wonder where you got that information from, or if it's a s/v1/v2/ typo?
Copyright notices in the vast majority of source files say "GPL v2 or later".
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:39 a.m.
On 8/17/07, Ville Skyttä <scop(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, SL Baur wrote:
>
> XEmacs is copyrighted GPL v1 or later.
I wonder where you got that information from, or if it's a s/v1/v2/ typo?
Copyright notices in the vast majority of source files say "GPL v2 or later".
Our core source code is derived from Lucid Emacs which predated GPL
v2. I don't think it's legally clear to anyone (beyond the fact that we're
100% GPL) what version of the GPL we are. Martin changed a lot of
the files you're looking at without permission of the authors, so ask
him if it was legal.
Just part of the reason Stallman has waged war on us.
-sb
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:49 p.m.
New subject: XEmacs copyright
SL Baur writes:
Our core source code is derived from Lucid Emacs which predated GPL
v2. I don't think it's legally clear to anyone (beyond the fact
that we're 100% GPL) what version of the GPL we are.
Well, I won't impose my view on anybody else, but I've synched GPLv2
code into XEmacs, so IMHO our immune system is v2 at best.
If you want GPLv1 code, of course you can dig into our archives and
get it from there. But code released as "v2 or later" is indeed not
v1 IMHO.
Martin changed a lot of the files you're looking at without
permission of the authors, so ask him if it was legal.
If it's from "v1 or later" to "v2 or later", he indeed did have
the
permission of the authors IMHO. If it's Weenie code, of course Bob is
sufficiently a dick to have changed back to "v1 or not at all" in some
cases (but I don't think any of that is in XEmacs proper). I can't
imagine anybody else lacks so much clue, though.
Just part of the reason Stallman has waged war on us.
Unlikely. I have my differences with Stallman, but this is not the
kind of thing he gets peeved about.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:27 p.m.
New subject: XEmacs copyright
On 8/17/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
SL Baur writes:
> Our core source code is derived from Lucid Emacs which predated GPL
> v2. I don't think it's legally clear to anyone (beyond the fact
> that we're 100% GPL) what version of the GPL we are.
Well, I won't impose my view on anybody else, but I've synched GPLv2
code into XEmacs, so IMHO our immune system is v2 at best.
If you want GPLv1 code, of course you can dig into our archives and
get it from there. But code released as "v2 or later" is indeed not
v1 IMHO.
I don't, but there used to be lots of stuff marked GPL v1 (or later)
with authorship attributed to Lucid and Sun.
> Martin changed a lot of the files you're looking at
without
> permission of the authors, so ask him if it was legal.
If it's from "v1 or later" to "v2 or later", he indeed did have
the
permission of the authors IMHO. If it's Weenie code, of course Bob is
sufficiently a dick to have changed back to "v1 or not at all" in some
cases (but I don't think any of that is in XEmacs proper). I can't
imagine anybody else lacks so much clue, though.
He might have added "or later" too. Do we still have XEmacs 19.14
and earlier in CVS? I'm curious now.
All of the relevant Infodock code, *I* merged with Bob's permission
and xemacs-review approval. There wasn't much in the way of
core code. But that had to have been under terms of at least
GPL v2.
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.
> Just part of the reason Stallman has waged war on us.
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). "Do you
understand why I must wage war against XEmacs because of this?"
I only had one telephone conversation with him ten years ago, but
it still burns my ass.
-sb
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:15 a.m.
New subject: 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
3:44 a.m.
New subject: XEmacs copyright
On 8/17/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
SL Baur writes:
> 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.
I originally put in every version I could find which went back much
further than 19.14. Gwyn doesn't want to talk to me right now, fine.
The assignment issue is separate from upgrading the GPL per se.
I'll defer to you on that then. However, unless things have changed
recently (have they?, copyright notices in mule files are still what
they were when I was working with ETL), has the Emperor decreed
that he will permit copyright change on that code? When I asked
Tomura-san in 1999 for permission to FSF copyright assign, I was told
it would be difficult.
-sb
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:48 a.m.
New subject: XEmacs copyright
SL Baur writes:
I'll defer to you on that then. However, unless things have
changed
recently (have they?, copyright notices in mule files are still what
they were when I was working with ETL), has the Emperor decreed
that he will permit copyright change on that code? When I asked
Tomura-san in 1999 for permission to FSF copyright assign, I was told
it would be difficult.
The Emperor has nothing to do with it, you know that much, I'm sure.
The problem is the Ministry of Redistribution of National Wealth from
Hardworking Taxpayers to Nonproductive Retired Bureaucrats and
Functionally Useless Professors (aka the Ministry of Finance), which
effectively controls all national property.
As I understand it, the author and his employer have *joint* copyright
unless there is some agreement to the contrary, and ETL is depending
on that to give the FSF an exclusive license to recent versions of
Mule, effectively transferring control.
How effective "effective" is, I'm not sure, especially as I haven't
seen the contract. But it was good enough for RMS and the FSF legal
staff.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:40 a.m.
New subject: XEmacs copyright
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
SL Baur writes:
> 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*.
This still sounds confused: the license is not something attached to
the code, but something attached to the act of transferring a copy.
1990 copyrighted material certainly can be distributed under a 2007
license and vice versa.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6095
days inactive
6096
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
David Kastrup -
SL Baur -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Ville Skyttä