2:40 a.m.
Let's say that, hypothetically speaking, I could spend a little time
over the next couple of weeks on some XEmacs work. Is there something
that needs to be done to finalize the GPLv3 transition? What state
are we in there? How can I help? Sorry for not keeping better track
recently.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:26 p.m.
>>>> Jerry James <james(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Jerry> Let's say that, hypothetically speaking, I could spend a little time
Jerry> over the next couple of weeks on some XEmacs work. Is there something
Jerry> that needs to be done to finalize the GPLv3 transition? What state
Jerry> are we in there? How can I help? Sorry for not keeping better track
Jerry> recently.
I don't think there has been any activity since the big job you did
yourself, at least I haven't noticed anything but I hope to be proven
wrong.
I also thought you had the best knowledge yourself about the state
through the "GPL version 3 source survey" and the mails you have sent
to different developers asking for their permission to go GPLv3 or
later. So what do you think?
Before the summer I got the impression that we ought to be rather
close to be able to do a switch. So I was just about to ask nearly the
same question myself: What is left and what can we do about it?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:14 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
I don't think there has been any activity since the big job you
did
yourself, at least I haven't noticed anything but I hope to be proven
wrong.
I also thought you had the best knowledge yourself about the state
through the "GPL version 3 source survey" and the mails you have sent
to different developers asking for their permission to go GPLv3 or
later. So what do you think?
Before the summer I got the impression that we ought to be rather
close to be able to do a switch. So I was just about to ask nearly the
same question myself: What is left and what can we do about it?
I had the impression that Ben had tied up the loose ends I left
dangling, and that what we needed was a new release with the new
license terms in place. If that's so, then I'd guess that our release
manager is overburdened. Stephen, is that a correct assessment of how
things stand? If so, is there some way I can take some or all of the
burden off your shoulders?
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:51 a.m.
Mats Lidell writes:
I don't think there has been any activity since the big job you
did
yourself, at least I haven't noticed anything but I hope to be
proven wrong.
Ben converted a large part and posted it as a branch on alioth, but I
don't think he did it correctly. I've done a little bit of work on
the actual conversion in early summer, but I've mostly been
concentrating on $DAYJOB and $BUYING_AND_MOVING_HOUSE recently.
Hopefully I can get back to doing the conversion work soon (early next
week).
Currently none of our images have license notices; the textual ones
that support comments (XBM and XPM) certainly should get them,
although I'm not sure what to do about the copyright notice.
Similarly for PNGs which support comments.
We need to figure out what to do with the Unicode data, as well. Some
of the files have weird licenses, basically permissive but not
obviously GPL compatible.
There are some other minor issues.
I also thought you had the best knowledge yourself about the state
through the "GPL version 3 source survey" and the mails you have
sent to different developers asking for their permission to go
GPLv3 or later. So what do you think?
We're basically done with that part AFAIK. All of the major
developers I know of have responded positively, although a couple like
J Kean Johnston have asked that their code get a notice that it is
also available under GPLv2.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:55 a.m.
Jerry James writes:
I had the impression that Ben had tied up the loose ends I left
dangling,
Hah! No, Ben just wrote a script to actually substitute GPLv3 for
GPLv2. He didn't come close to getting appropriate notices on all the
files, though.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:33 a.m.
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> Hopefully I can get back to doing the conversion work soon
Stephen> (early next week).
If you need assistance please say what you think needs to be done.
Stephen> ... although I'm not sure what to do about the copyright
Stephen> notice. Similarly for PNGs which support comments.
You mean you are not sure we can add copyright notices to the picture
for legal reasons or?
Stephen> We need to figure out what to do with the Unicode data, as
Stephen> well. Some of the files have weird licenses, basically
Stephen> permissive but not obviously GPL compatible.
I hope that the unicode consortium files are OK to use. Right? Their
license seems to allow most anything like copying, distribution etc.
Could these files be a problem together with GPLv3 or later?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:37 a.m.
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
Stephen> Hopefully I can get back to doing the conversion work soon
Stephen> (early next week).
If you need assistance please say what you think needs to be done.
Sure, thanks!
Stephen> ... although I'm not sure what to do about the
copyright
Stephen> notice. Similarly for PNGs which support comments.
You mean you are not sure we can add copyright notices to the
picture for legal reasons or?
A copyright notice needs to say who owns it; we often have no
information about that for the images. For the etc/photos PNGs, I
guess we can assume copyright by the person who submitted them.
The license notice, OTOH, says "this is part of XEmacs and XEmacs is
distributed under the GPL."
The risk is small; if some image author wants it out and claims it was
never licensed under GPL, we can do that (and substitute a free icon).
Stephen> We need to figure out what to do with the Unicode data,
as
Stephen> well. Some of the files have weird licenses, basically
Stephen> permissive but not obviously GPL compatible.
I hope that the unicode consortium files are OK to use. Right?
Their license seems to allow most anything like copying,
distribution etc. Could these files be a problem together with
GPLv3 or later?
As I say, they're permissive but not obviously GPL compatible (some
have restrictions on modified versions, etc. IIRC, we can distribute
the sources under the original licenses as "mere aggregation", then
build the tables internally. If the user builds the internal tables,
there's no problem. If a distro does, then IIRC the binary can be
distributed under GPL in all of the licenses. I'm not sure if this
requires that the sources of the data be GPL.
It's been a while and I wanted to review all the licenses. Apparently
this is all OK with the FSF lawyers, though, since Emacs has converted
to Unicode internally (and of course there was always Mule-UCS
although that was never distributed with Emacs). I also wanted to see
how Emacs 23 et seq handle the issue.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:32 p.m.
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> As I say, they're permissive but not obviously GPL compatible (some
Stephen> have restrictions on modified versions, etc.
These files, or some of them, seems to be party of the Emacs and
Python distributions. If it is fine for them it should be fine for us
as well, or?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:08 a.m.
Mats Lidell writes:
These files, or some of them, seems to be party of the Emacs and
Python distributions. If it is fine for them it should be fine for
us as well, or?
You're sure they distribute those files? I know they use them, but I
don't know that they distribute them, and I definitely don't know what
license they claim applies. There's also the question of partial
distribution; the various files we distribute have different sources
and different licenses.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:36 a.m.
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> You're sure they distribute those files?
I checked what was in the respective repositories. Isn't that
distribution?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:09 a.m.
Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
Stephen> You're sure they distribute those files?
I checked what was in the respective repositories. Isn't that
distribution?
Not really. The tarball is the distribution. A publicly available
repository is likely a legally grey area. It will be a major mess if
some lawyers figure this out as a suitable playground because it would
mean that you not just need to remove problematic files, but also remove
any history of them. For most version control systems, this amounts to
major surgery.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:49 a.m.
Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>
> Stephen> You're sure they distribute those files?
>
> I checked what was in the respective repositories. Isn't that
> distribution?
Yes, according to copyright law. A copy was made for the purpose of
conveying to another person, and this copy was authorized by the
owners of those repositories.
David Kastrup writes:
Not really. The tarball is the distribution.
No. True, that's what the Emacs project thinks of as "the"
distribution, but that won't cut any ice in copyright court. A
repository is clearly a derivative of the original work, and conveys
copies to anyone who can access it. A public repo is also clearly "a"
distribution under copyright law.
A publicly available repository is likely a legally grey area.
Perhaps under the GPL it is, but that would be a GPL bug. A repo is
an automated device for conveying copies, no more and no less. A
public repo is therefore a device for distribution.
It is perhaps true that a repo that is supposed to be private and
whose address leaks and is accessed by an unauthorized party would not
be a "distribution" by the repo's owner, but if so, it would be a
copyright violation by the unauthorized party.
It will be a major mess if some lawyers figure this out as a
suitable playground because it would mean that you not just need to
remove problematic files, but also remove any history of them.
Indeed, and this is one reason Larry McVoy gives for why he is not
afraid of git stealing his (paying) customers.
This is a major reason why git is my weapon of choice: you can
efficiently and straighforwardly do such surgery on a git repo with
filter-branch. This is the kind of operation that would majorly suck
if you had to do it in Bazaar.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:18 a.m.
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
This is a major reason why git is my weapon of choice: you can
efficiently and straighforwardly do such surgery on a git repo with
filter-branch. This is the kind of operation that would majorly suck
if you had to do it in Bazaar.
It sucks majorly on git as well when done on a publicly accessible
repository since any development done on the unfiltered branch elsewhere
becomes a mess when merging, typically reintroducing the stuff filtered
out together with wagonloads of conflicts.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:24 p.m.
David Kastrup writes:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> This is a major reason why git is my weapon of choice: you can
> efficiently and straighforwardly do such surgery on a git repo
> with filter-branch. This is the kind of operation that would
> majorly suck if you had to do it in Bazaar.
It sucks majorly on git as well when done on a publicly accessible
repository since any development done on the unfiltered branch
elsewhere becomes a mess when merging, typically reintroducing the
stuff filtered out together with wagonloads of conflicts.
Well, sure. But that's not avoidable if you are forced to do that
kind of nasty thing to your repo. At least you can publish your
script using standard git facilities so that people who have majorly
diverged branches can mangle their own branches. It's going to be
messier than dealing with a simple rebase that escapes to the public,
but basically the same concept.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:12 a.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- taking care of the graphics (was: GPLv3 status)
Hi,
Many plain text GPLv2 or later files are now moved to GPLv3 or
later. So I want to move on with the graphics files. We have some 300
files of this type so it is a significant contribution to the files
remaining.
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> A copyright notice needs to say who owns it; we often have no
Stephen> information about that for the images. For the etc/photos PNGs, I
Stephen> guess we can assume copyright by the person who submitted
Stephen> them.
Stephen> The license notice, OTOH, says "this is part of XEmacs and
Stephen> XEmacs is distributed under the GPL."
Stephen> The risk is small; if some image author wants it out and
Stephen> claims it was never licensed under GPL, we can do that (and
Stephen> substitute a free icon).
Lets se if I get this right: For the graphics files we can insert the
normal license notice. "This file is part...". If an author claims we
are wrong.[1] -- This file was never released under GPL, we drop it in
favor of some other free icon either found or created?
As for the copyright notices on the photos they should be set to the
person shown on the picture.
Who should be set as copyright owner on the other graphics? Nobody?
The FSF?
Yours
--
%% Mats
Footnotes:
[1] We don't know who contributed most of the graphics do we so that
we can ask?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:23 a.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files (was: GPLv3 status)
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> We need to figure out what to do with the Unicode data, as
Stephen> well. Some of the files have weird licenses, basically
Stephen> permissive but not obviously GPL compatible.
Did we reach some conclusion on what to do with these files with
unicode data? If so what was it?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:57 a.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- taking care of the graphics (was: GPLv3 status)
Mats Lidell writes:
Lets se if I get this right: For the graphics files we can insert
the
normal license notice. "This file is part...". If an author claims we
are wrong.[1] -- This file was never released under GPL, we drop it in
favor of some other free icon either found or created?
Yes. The risk is vanishingly small, most of these files *have* been
released under the GPL (as part of XEmacs) for 15 years now. This
just makes it explicit.
As for the copyright notices on the photos they should be set to the
person shown on the picture.
Who should be set as copyright owner on the other graphics? Nobody?
The FSF?
Nobody. We don't know. There's a copyright owner somewhere, but if
it's the FSF I doubt they have a filename on file. If somebody
objects or complains about an apparent copyright violation that we
should follow up, we do more research, I guess.
[1] We don't know who contributed most of the graphics do we so
that
we can ask?
Jamie or Richard Gabriel might be able to say about graphics that were
part of Lucid Emacs. Some may have been inherited from Epoch.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:07 a.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files (was: GPLv3 status)
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
Stephen> We need to figure out what to do with the Unicode data,
as
Stephen> well. Some of the files have weird licenses, basically
Stephen> permissive but not obviously GPL compatible.
Did we reach some conclusion on what to do with these files with
unicode data? If so what was it?
No. However, I'm reasonably sure that we can redistribute all of
these files, see the READMEs.
For the purposes of an initial GPLv3 release, put a COPYING file in
/etc/unicode declaring that these files are *not* part of XEmacs, they
are all available publicly from O'Reilly Associates or the Unicode
Consortium, and are collected here *unchanged* for the convenience of
the user/builder of XEmacs. Redistribution is governed by their own
licensing notices, which are included in each file AFAIK, and by
clarifying statements of the owners (in READMEs).
I think this is a reasonable interpretation, since XEmacs can be
configured to not care if any particular one (or many) of those files
exists, and it can use other versions etc (not that there ever will be
any AFAIK).
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:14 p.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- taking care of the graphics
Hi,
Looking deeper into the png files.
I wrote earlier:
> As for the copyright notices on the photos they should be set to
> the person shown on the picture.
If we follow that it gets like this for the png files:
For png you can set a property. We could use that for setting the
properties "copyright" and "license". Displaying these properties
using the identify program (ImageMagick package) looks like this (This
is part of a 350 lines output from identify using the -verbose option)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Compression: Zip
Orientation: Undefined
Properties:
copyright: Copyright (C) 2001 Harald Licenser
date:create: 2010-10-25T21:37:31+02:00
date:modify: 2010-10-25T21:37:31+02:00
license: This file is part of XEmacs.
XEmacs is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version.
XEmacs is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with XEmacs. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>;.
signature: ac9019d1b740ee00926294bd1e9a8cfee8693329fac0626737945ff28ea23022
Artifacts:
verbose: true
Tainted: False
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The year in the copyright notice is from the year the file was
contributed according to hg. The name of the copyright holder is the
person on the picture (a fake example this time).
The later might not be true for all pictures in which case further
analysis is required or we just drop the picture!?
Is this how to do this for the png pictures?
One alternative IMHO is to drop all the png pictures from the
etc/photos folder. If we really like them they can be put to display
on the web-page instead. I might be wrong but I don't think it is
customary to include pictures of the contributors within the source.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:47 p.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> For the purposes of an initial GPLv3 release, put a COPYING file in
Stephen> /etc/unicode declaring that these files are *not* part of XEmacs, they
Stephen> are all available publicly from O'Reilly Associates or the Unicode
Stephen> Consortium, and are collected here *unchanged* for the convenience of
Stephen> the user/builder of XEmacs. [...]
There is already a COPYING file in the etc/unicode/unicode-consortium
directory. Should we change that into something shorter like what you
just outlined?
For the etc/unicode directory we have also the ibm and mule-ucs files
to consider.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:48 a.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- taking care of the graphics
Mats Lidell writes:
For png you can set a property. We could use that for setting the
properties "copyright" and "license". Displaying these properties
using the identify program (ImageMagick package) looks like this
That looks good to me.
I might be wrong but I don't think it is customary to include
pictures of the contributors within the source.
We don't care what is "customary", except as it helps identify better
UI or make it easier to develop XEmacs. If individuals want their
pictures removed, they can do that or ask us to do so.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5 a.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files
Mats Lidell writes:
There is already a COPYING file in the
etc/unicode/unicode-consortium
directory. Should we change that into something shorter like what you
just outlined?
No, leave that as it is.
For the etc/unicode directory we have also the ibm and mule-ucs
files
to consider.
The mule-ucs files are generated files, included for convenience. See
the README. The IBM files are apparently open source, from ICU.
They're covered by this license:
which should be placed in the ibm directory. The
./etc/unicode/COPYING file should refer to the mule-ucs/README and
this file.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:36 p.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files (was: GPLv3 status)
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Mats Lidell writes:
> >>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> Stephen> We need to figure out what to do with the Unicode data, as
> Stephen> well. Some of the files have weird licenses, basically
> Stephen> permissive but not obviously GPL compatible.
>
> Did we reach some conclusion on what to do with these files with
> unicode data? If so what was it?
No. However, I'm reasonably sure that we can redistribute all of
these files, see the READMEs.
For the purposes of an initial GPLv3 release, put a COPYING file in
/etc/unicode declaring that these files are *not* part of XEmacs, they
are all available publicly from O'Reilly Associates or the Unicode
Consortium, and are collected here *unchanged* for the convenience of
the user/builder of XEmacs. Redistribution is governed by their own
licensing notices, which are included in each file AFAIK, and by
clarifying statements of the owners (in READMEs).
I think this is a reasonable interpretation, since XEmacs can be
configured to not care if any particular one (or many) of those files
exists, and it can use other versions etc (not that there ever will be
any AFAIK).
Well, as long as the format (interface) of the files is not under some
kind of restrictive license (which I don't think is possible unless
someone has patented flat text ;-), I don't think that really matters?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:55 p.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
<stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
The mule-ucs files are generated files, included for convenience.
See
the README. The IBM files are apparently open source, from ICU.
They're covered by this license:
which should be placed in the ibm directory. The
./etc/unicode/COPYING file should refer to the mule-ucs/README and
this file.
That's some short license!
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:40 a.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files (was: GPLv3 status)
Samuel Bronson writes:
Well, as long as the format (interface) of the files is not under
some
kind of restrictive license (which I don't think is possible unless
someone has patented flat text ;-), I don't think that really matters?
It's not a question of patent, it's a question of copyright. If we
distribute those files *with* XEmacs, it is arguable that XEmacs is a
derivative of those files (ie, a collective work containing those
files), and according to the Generically Painful License, we must
distribute *those files* under the GPL. That may not be possible
under their licenses (for example, if they require verbatim
redistribution).
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:23 p.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files
>>>> Samuel Bronson <naesten(a)gmail.com> writes:
Samuel> That's some short license!
You need to read between the lines! The blank lines ;-)
Oddly enough I lost that mail completely. (What did it contain!?) I'm
on a imap-server using normally Gnus but occasionally Tunderbird and
at occasions both at the same time!? I had to find the mail in the
archives. Here:
http://list-archive.xemacs.org/pipermail/xemacs-beta/2010-October/020286....
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:39 p.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
>>>>> Samuel Bronson <naesten(a)gmail.com> writes:
Samuel> That's some short license!
You need to read between the lines! The blank lines ;-)
Oddly enough I lost that mail completely. (What did it contain!?) I'm
on a imap-server using normally Gnus but occasionally Tunderbird and
at occasions both at the same time!? I had to find the mail in the
archives. Here:
http://list-archive.xemacs.org/pipermail/xemacs-beta/2010-October/020286.html
Ah, that makes a *bit* more sense ... but that seems to be the license
for the wrong thing?
(Gmail "helpfully" displayed the attachment at the end instead of at
the point where it actually appeared in the message, leaving only
blank space in its place.
P.S. Sorry about the long delay. I thought I had sent this message
days ago, until I discovered the browser tab again just now.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:50 p.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files
>>>> Samuel Bronson <naesten(a)gmail.com> writes:
Samuel> Ah, that makes a *bit* more sense ... but that seems to be the
Samuel> license for the wrong thing?
Well, yes, it does look confusing but I think I browsed the web and
found some evidence that it actually is the right license. Where I saw
that is unfortunately forgotten. Maybe Stephen can explain how the
files in the ibm folder can be copyrighted by Unicode, Inc.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:42 a.m.
New subject: GPLv3/L8R -- the unicode files
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Samuel Bronson <naesten(a)gmail.com>
writes:
Samuel> Ah, that makes a *bit* more sense ... but that seems to be the
Samuel> license for the wrong thing?
Well, yes, it does look confusing but I think I browsed the web and
found some evidence that it actually is the right license. Where I saw
that is unfortunately forgotten. Maybe Stephen can explain how the
files in the ibm folder can be copyrighted by Unicode, Inc.
Same way all my XEmacs code is copyright FSF.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4924
days inactive
4979
days old
28 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
David Kastrup -
Jerry James -
Samuel Bronson -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest