Who can help with the GPL v3 effort?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Ben Wing writes:

 > This contains what I think is a GPLv3-legal workspace.  I have not
 > updated the permissions notices because I don't think it's
 > necessary.

C'mon, Ben, please back off on this.  Permission notices that refer to
the license of "XEmacs" should be "GPL v3 or later".

I imagine that you're right that it's not strictly necessary.  But
doing it this way is more trouble than its worth, because it makes us
look like assholes.

 > (After all, GNU Emacs ships with different files with different
 > versions in them; the most restrictive one applies.

I've asked Stallman about that; he said that each such file must be
justified individually as being a separate work from Emacs itself in
some sense.  Be that as it may (RMS has great trouble distinguishing
between legal necessity and FSF policy), I think you will find if you
look closely that such files grant permissions for themselves, and not
for Emacs as a whole.

I really think it is best if all notices referring to the license of
XEmacs have the same version information.  "Best effort" is good
enough; we can fix any mistakes as we notice them.

 > The only potential issue [with the texinfo files] is a few lines
 > added by Albert Chin-A-Young <china at thewrittenword.com>.  This
 > amounts to 7 lines, so perhaps we can say it's under the 10-line
 > (or 16-line) limit.  Or just remove the lines as they're not
 > totally necessary.

I wouldn't worry about that, since he's not a well-known contributor.
I'll try to get in touch with him.