GPLv3 or later -- Lispref files refers to text in lispref.text

[Andreas Roehler]

Mats Lidell wrote:
>>>>>> Andreas Roehler <andreas.roehler at online.de> writes:
> 
> Andreas> Really? I.e. they wrote: but _not_ any later version of GPL?
> Andreas> Does it make sense?
> 
> They don't have to specify what licenses that doesn't apply, that list
> would be long. Only the license that does apply needs to be specified
> and if that says GPLv2 then that is so. Files with this type of
> copyright need to be relicensed by the copyright holder or if that
> isn't possible they need to be replaced.

Hi Mats,

probably I should come the an end with this matter. :)

I'm afraid FSF software movement is stepping into a legal trap to the extend,
it can't be called free anymore.

That already started with famous `copyleft' notion, and developers
considering GPL non-free have their point IMHO.

Nonetheless I'm willing to weight the practical side - as long as
(X)Emacs is available, thats my prove in first instance
and as long I'm determined to contribute.


Andreas

PS Copyright notion is a trap in programming. Programming is about ideas,
 not line-counting copyright. The author of e=m*c**2 would have lost his
case, because no judge would consider such a mince
 notation worthwhile in the sense of copyright.

BTW the same in literature. Emily Dickinson never got paid for
her poems because of copyright. Copyright is for the dull.



> 
> Andreas> What a kind of misuse of code might happen? Eating the paper,
> Andreas> if its printed somewhere. IMHO people may misuse computers
> Andreas> and probably do. GPL can't hinder that.
> 
> Well the misuse is that the code is used in a way that the license
> doesn't allow.
> 
> Andreas> Anyway, didn't want to make you upset. Just wanted to bring
> Andreas> some momentum to the issue.
> 
> No problem. It is good to discuss it but I'm afraid that there are
> probably no shortcuts here. So to get some momentum IMHO the proper
> thing is to dive in, find weak spots and try to find out what need to
> be done about them. That has to be done for each file, one by one, and
> documented.
> 
> Unfortunately we haven't found any good way to do this in a
> collaborate way yet.
> 
> Yours