7:30 a.m.
Hi,
With the recent support of character classes, thanks Aidan, go-mode
almost works out of the box now. With box meaning being part of the go
lang distribution.
I have submitted a patch to the go-project that makes it work under
XEmacs 21.5 and GNU Emacs. I'll see if it gets accepted.
Nevertheless the I would like to add it to the packages. prog-modes
seems to be the natural place for it since it is just a single file
mode. (I know it ought to work with 21.4 as well but it doesn't.)
So the next step would be to update prog-mode.info and add some
autoload-statements to make it a proper citizen under prog-modes. OK?
There is also a copyright text issue. go-mode, as the whole go
project, is under the modified BSD-license. That is compatible with
GPL so that is OK. However there is no copyright text in the
go-mode.el file. What is the proper thing to do here? Add the LICENSE
text to the top of the file, just refer to it or do nothing?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:52 p.m.
Mats Lidell writes:
There is also a copyright text issue. go-mode, as the whole go
project, is under the modified BSD-license.
If you want to continue distributing it under BSD, I would recommend
putting it in a separate package. bsd-progs or something like that,
maybe.
That is compatible with
GPL so that is OK. However there is no copyright text in the
go-mode.el file.
What do you mean by "no copyright text"? There is no copyright
notice (listing authors and dates), and no permissions notice (in most
BSD software the whole license is there)?
If neither is present, I would probably add a statement saying
This program is copyright by its authors. For more information,
contact the Go language project <mailbox(a)example.org>. You may
use, modify and distribute the program under the following terms:
followed by the license (it's only about 20 lines, right?)
What is the proper thing to do here?
The purpose of a copyright notice (for us) is to inform users, since
copyright itself doesn't depend on a notice. What would a user want
to know? That's the question. The license is necessary because (as
the GPL says) it's the only thing that permits the user to do
anything. I think it's more convenient in the case of a standalone
file to put it in the file, but YMMV.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:55 p.m.
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
If you want to continue distributing it under BSD, I would recommend
putting it in a separate package. bsd-progs or something like that,
maybe.
I'm not the author so how can I choose not to distribute it with the
modified BSD license?.
bsd-progs sounds terribly misleading to me and I'm not sure why we
need to do that. Modified BSD is supposed to be compatible with GPL so
that distributing them together is OK. The whole prog-mods can still
be GPLv3 or later although single files are not or? (But I'm probably
missing something here!?, or?)
What do you mean by "no copyright text"? There is no
copyright
notice (listing authors and dates), and no permissions notice (in
most BSD software the whole license is there)?
They use a rather simplified notation. In the core go files there is a
short three line copyright statement pointing to a LICENSE file that
contains the modified BSD text.
When it comes to the go-mode there is no text like that. So to be sure
I asked on the list what copyright and license was appropriate for the
mode and one of the core developers said it is the same as for all the
rest of the files. Text or no text, it is obvious what they mean.
If neither is present, I would probably add a statement saying
[...]
Yes that sounds good.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:21 a.m.
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
> If you want to continue distributing it under BSD, I would recommend
> putting it in a separate package. bsd-progs or something like that,
> maybe.
I'm not the author so how can I choose not to distribute it with the
modified BSD license?.
That's what "permissive" means. In the case of the BSD family, you
must include the BSD license itself, but you can add terms such as the
GPL. In the case of the MIT license, you can actually relicense to
the GPL, and the MIT license disappears entirely!
bsd-progs sounds terribly misleading to me and I'm not sure why
we
need to do that.
It's not a question of *need*, it's a question of how carefully do we
(actually, you :-) want to respect the original license? If we don't
make it plain in some way that people should not randomly add the GPL
to this file, someday somebody will. Putting it in a separately
licensed package makes it clear that we are respecting their license.
To my taste, that's "more respect" than simply adding the license to
the file (either the text or a pointer to a separate file). If you
don't feel a need to do that, that's fine by me (and fine by the
Go-lang folks too, since they use a license that permits you to do it
your way).
When it comes to the go-mode there is no text like that. So to be
sure
I asked on the list what copyright and license was appropriate for the
mode and one of the core developers said it is the same as for all the
rest of the files. Text or no text, it is obvious what they mean.
Good enough.
> If neither is present, I would probably add a statement saying
> [...]
Yes that sounds good.
Go for it, then!
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4369
days inactive
4370
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest