5:44 p.m.
While I think I understand the issues around GPLv2 versus GPLv3 for
XEmacs core, the corresponding issues with the packages are not so
clear to me. We have 3 packages in CVS right now that carry GPLv3
licenses: viper, ediff, and verilog-mode. Is that okay?
I ask because the Fedora Powers That Be would like us to update our
copy of verilog-mode to solve some issues that were addressed in very
recent versions of that package. While looking at it to see how hard
it would be to update, I saw the GPLv3 license and grepped for the
others.
Thanks,
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:20 a.m.
* Jerry James <james(a)xemacs.org> writes:
While I think I understand the issues around GPLv2 versus GPLv3 for
XEmacs core, the corresponding issues with the packages are not so
clear to me. We have 3 packages in CVS right now that carry GPLv3
licenses: viper, ediff, and verilog-mode. Is that okay?
According to the FSF copyright boffins, it's not ok. There was a
discussion here last year some time concerning the Tramp package.
Someone, I think the Tramp maintainer, contacted the FSF about it and
the answer was basically: if Tramp is GPLv3 then XEmacs has to be GPLv3
too.
Personally, I think that's nuts, but what can you do...
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| SXEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. |
| Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! |
|------------------------------------<steve(a)sxemacs.org>---|
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:35 a.m.
Jerry James writes:
While I think I understand the issues around GPLv2 versus GPLv3 for
XEmacs core, the corresponding issues with the packages are not so
clear to me. We have 3 packages in CVS right now that carry GPLv3
licenses: viper, ediff, and verilog-mode. Is that okay?
No. Besides what Steve Youngs mentioned (which I think is bogus, but
the FSF has free WMDs and we'd have to pay for ours), the package
infrastructure is GPLv2, and that's an open-and-shut case. The whole
package tree (as a collective work) must be license compatible with
each of the works in the collection, so if there are any GPLv3
packages, the whole thing must be GPLv3.
The committers of those packages should be informed, and we should
revert to the latest working GPLv2 versions. I don't think we need to
actually remove the GPLv3 code, but we should be prepared for such a
demand from the FSF and/or the authors.
I think we could probably convert the packages wholesale to GPLv3 even
if XEmacs itself is still GPLv2. We simply invite bug reports if they
don't work with GNU Emacs, and declare they're not part of (GPLv2)
XEmacs, but a separately maintained work. RMS and FSF would still
object, and if they decide to take us to court, we'd have to fold
unless somebody were willing to represent us pro bono. We'd also have
problems doing maintenance on them for XEmacs, I suspect. Ie, changes
in them to make them work better with GPLv2 XEmacs would undoubtedly
get a claim that these aren't separate works, but rather derivative of
XEmacs.
We also need to coordinate the whole thing with SXEmacs.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:24 p.m.
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> I think we could probably convert the packages wholesale to
Stephen> GPLv3 even if XEmacs itself is still GPLv2.
I would prefer that.
Stephen> We'd also have problems doing maintenance on them for XEmacs,
Stephen> I suspect. Ie, changes in them to make them work better with
Stephen> GPLv2 XEmacs would undoubtedly get a claim that these aren't
Stephen> separate works, but rather derivative of XEmacs.
That is true but if the goal is to make XEmacs GPLv3 too and we show
that we are working on that I hope some migration period surely would
be acceptable.
Stephen> We also need to coordinate the whole thing with SXEmacs.
What is the position of the SXEmacs project on GPLv3?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:26 p.m.
* Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
Stephen> We also need to coordinate the whole thing with SXEmacs.
What is the position of the SXEmacs project on GPLv3?
We updated all our GPL'd stuff to it back in November, 2007. And before
you ask about packages... we don't ship any. :-)
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| SXEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. |
| Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! |
|------------------------------------<steve(a)sxemacs.org>---|
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5:25 p.m.
Steve Youngs writes:
* Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> We also need to coordinate the whole thing with SXEmacs.
> What is the position of the SXEmacs project on GPLv3?
We updated all our GPL'd stuff to it back in November, 2007.
Oh. Is
http://www.sxemacs.org/docs/sxemacs/License.html#License
some kind of joke, then?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:41 a.m.
* Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Steve Youngs writes:
> * Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>
> >>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> We also need to coordinate the whole thing with SXEmacs.
>
> > What is the position of the SXEmacs project on GPLv3?
>
> We updated all our GPL'd stuff to it back in November, 2007.
Oh. Is
some kind of joke, then?
Ah no... it's an oversight. Just forgot it. I had deliberately not
touched the texinfo docs because I wanted to see what XE does licence
wise there (considering the GFDL nonsense). I didn't stop to think
about a texinfo of the licence of the software. I'll fix that right
now.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| SXEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. |
| Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! |
|------------------------------------<steve(a)sxemacs.org>---|
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:15 a.m.
* Steve Youngs <steve(a)sxemacs.org> writes:
* Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> Steve Youngs writes:
>> * Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>
>> >>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> We also need to coordinate the whole thing with SXEmacs.
>>
>> > What is the position of the SXEmacs project on GPLv3?
>>
>> We updated all our GPL'd stuff to it back in November, 2007.
> Oh. Is
> some kind of joke, then?
Ah no... it's an oversight. Just forgot it. I had deliberately
not
touched the texinfo docs because I wanted to see what XE does licence
wise there (considering the GFDL nonsense). I didn't stop to think
about a texinfo of the licence of the software. I'll fix that right
now.
Fixed now. Thanks, Steve. BTW, I'm not in the least bit surprised
that's it has taken 18 months for someone to notice.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| SXEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. |
| Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! |
|------------------------------------<steve(a)sxemacs.org>---|
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:39 p.m.
Steve Youngs writes:
Fixed now. Thanks, Steve. BTW, I'm not in the least bit
surprised
that's it has taken 18 months for someone to notice.
Oh, wow. You know what I just realized? It's that way in XEmacs too
(of course). And you know what else? *It's arguably a copyright
violation to change that.* It's what the GFDL calls an invariant
section; it must be copied verbatim regardless of its falsity.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:59 p.m.
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
That is true but if the goal is to make XEmacs GPLv3 too and we show
that we are working on that I hope some migration period surely would
be acceptable.
Maybe. Ask Cisco about that. Or Peter Deutsch. I think it's likely
that the FSF would make demands at a time we didn't want to make the
effort to comply, because we were short of manpower (not out of
malice, Murphy's Law). I think we're reasonably on track, we don't
have the manpower to do much syncing anyway, so let's just get it
done.
Stephen> We also need to coordinate the whole thing with SXEmacs.
What is the position of the SXEmacs project on GPLv3?
That's not for me to say, but SXEmacs is not licensed under GPLv3 at
the present.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5668
days inactive
5670
days old
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jerry James -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Steve Youngs -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest