Who can help with the GPL v3 effort?
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Sun Mar 7 11:33:57 EST 2010
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
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.
More information about the XEmacs-Beta