Re: Licence of ts-comint

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

Jostein Kjønigsen
Hey Jean.

Thanks for the email.

I'll be frank and admit I don't really care that much about licensing as long as software I use is open-source. That applies to stuff I write and maintain myself.

(Prepare for a slight rant)

With that said, I'm a bit put off by how much effort the FSF/GNU puts into copyright and licensing of code, as opposed ... the code itself.

The whole GCC AST thing and debate about the "freeness" of the AST lead to LLVM being made. For similar reasons, Emacs and GUD has for a long time not supported a Elf-3 capable debugger, because before GDB got that capability that would mean supporting LLDB, which would be "bad" (it not being GPL-licensed and all).

I've seen this quote on some forum online: "The FSF was formed to replace proprietary software with free software. Having succeeded, it now lives on to replace free software with free software".

It's obviously meant as a joke, but I hope you can see where that joke is coming from. Is this really where your effort is best spent?

And now this... I honestly find the churn the FSF is putting on its GPL licenses quite baffling.

If the GPL v1 was good enough for free software... Why on earth should the FSF develop and deploy a new license which renders all former GPLed code "incompatible" (as you put it)? I'm lost for words. Are there really anyone besides Richard M. Stallmann who condones this move?

If you now make the GPL-license incompatible not only with BSD or MIT-type licenses, but also the GPL license itself... Prepare to be even further berated next time the GPL vs BSD-license is up for debate in online forums. Why put so much effort into making license compliance so hard?

From the outside looking in, it looks like needlessly inconveniencing the very people who made stuff for your platform.

You're obviously free to do whatever you please, but to me this just seems a misguided. If your goal is to  promote free software, how do you see this helping?

(End of rant)

That said... My small and pretty insignificant package is already licensed "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along".

If you still think this is "incompatible" and needs an upgrade, and if you are willing to do the leg-work... You know where my repo is. Feel free to issue a pull-request and I'll have it merged.

--
Yours truly
Jostein Kjønigsen



On Sat, Aug 12, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
Hi,

In a thread in the emacs-devel maillist, the licensing situation for
emacs
packages provided through Emacs package archives has been under focus. I
have
volunteered to contact the authors of packages that have a license that
is
incompatible with Emacs, which is now under GPL-3+.


So I wonder if you could consider to change the license of your package
to
GPL-3+?

Also, you may have noticed that the package from which ts-comint is
forked has recently moved to GPL3+.

Yours,

Jean-Christophe Helary

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

Jean-Christophe Helary
Jostein,

Thank you very much for the reply.

I must apologize for the hassle because the script that automatically checked for GPL2+ (or other equivalent wordings) did not catch "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along" and I did not take the time to actually check for myself.

Thank you very much for your work, and for making the effort to use a license that makes your package compatible with Emacs.

Regards,

Jean-Christophe 

On Aug 13, 2017, at 12:58, Jostein Kjønigsen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Jean.

Thanks for the email.

I'll be frank and admit I don't really care that much about licensing as long as software I use is open-source. That applies to stuff I write and maintain myself.

(Prepare for a slight rant)

With that said, I'm a bit put off by how much effort the FSF/GNU puts into copyright and licensing of code, as opposed ... the code itself.

The whole GCC AST thing and debate about the "freeness" of the AST lead to LLVM being made. For similar reasons, Emacs and GUD has for a long time not supported a Elf-3 capable debugger, because before GDB got that capability that would mean supporting LLDB, which would be "bad" (it not being GPL-licensed and all).

I've seen this quote on some forum online: "The FSF was formed to replace proprietary software with free software. Having succeeded, it now lives on to replace free software with free software".

It's obviously meant as a joke, but I hope you can see where that joke is coming from. Is this really where your effort is best spent?

And now this... I honestly find the churn the FSF is putting on its GPL licenses quite baffling.

If the GPL v1 was good enough for free software... Why on earth should the FSF develop and deploy a new license which renders all former GPLed code "incompatible" (as you put it)? I'm lost for words. Are there really anyone besides Richard M. Stallmann who condones this move?

If you now make the GPL-license incompatible not only with BSD or MIT-type licenses, but also the GPL license itself... Prepare to be even further berated next time the GPL vs BSD-license is up for debate in online forums. Why put so much effort into making license compliance so hard?

From the outside looking in, it looks like needlessly inconveniencing the very people who made stuff for your platform.

You're obviously free to do whatever you please, but to me this just seems a misguided. If your goal is to  promote free software, how do you see this helping?

(End of rant)

That said... My small and pretty insignificant package is already licensed "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along".

If you still think this is "incompatible" and needs an upgrade, and if you are willing to do the leg-work... You know where my repo is. Feel free to issue a pull-request and I'll have it merged.

--
Yours truly
Jostein Kjønigsen



On Sat, Aug 12, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
Hi,

In a thread in the emacs-devel maillist, the licensing situation for
emacs
packages provided through Emacs package archives has been under focus. I
have
volunteered to contact the authors of packages that have a license that
is
incompatible with Emacs, which is now under GPL-3+.


So I wonder if you could consider to change the license of your package
to
GPL-3+?

Also, you may have noticed that the package from which ts-comint is
forked has recently moved to GPL3+.

Yours,

Jean-Christophe Helary


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

Paul Eggert
In reply to this post by Jostein Kjønigsen
Jostein Kjønigsen wrote:
> My  small and pretty insignificant package is already
> licensed "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along".

Ah, so the answer to Jean-Christophe Helary's question is, "ts-comint is already
redistributable under GPL-3+, since its license is GPL-2+." Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

Stefan Monnier
In reply to this post by Jostein Kjønigsen
> to LLVM being made. For similar reasons, Emacs and GUD has for a long
> time not supported a Elf-3 capable debugger, because before GDB got that
> capability that would mean supporting LLDB, which would be "bad" (it not
> being GPL-licensed and all).

I explicitly said I'd be happy to integrate LLDB support into GUD.
The only reason why it's not there is because that package was removed
from the upstream repository at that time.

I know Richard had a different opinion, but he was not maintainer.
I don't know what is the current maintainers's opinion about include
support for LLVM/LLDB/... into Emacs.  I'm personally have no issue
with it.

> I've seen this quote on some forum online: "The FSF was formed to
> replace proprietary software with free software. Having succeeded, it
> now lives on to replace free software with free software".

FWIW, there is currently a lot of effort from various companies to
rewrite GPL'd Free Software into non-copyleft Free Software.

Maybe the FSF also wastes some time doing so, but it's very far from the
worst culprit in this regard.

> It's obviously meant as a joke, but I hope you can see where that joke
> is coming from.

Oh, yes.  I see a lot of anti-FSF bashing behind it for ideological
reasons, indeed.

> If the GPL v1 was good enough for free software... Why on earth should
> the FSF develop and deploy a new license which renders all former GPLed
> code "incompatible" (as you put it)? I'm lost for words.

GPLv1+ is compatible with GPLv2+ which is compatible with GPLv3+.
So you'll only find problems with those people who used "GPLv2-only"
such as the Linux project.

> If you now make the GPL-license incompatible not only with BSD or
> MIT-type licenses, but also the GPL license itself... Prepare to be
> even further berated next time the GPL vs BSD-license is up for
> debate in online forums.

The FSF will be berated no matter what it does, because its goal irk
influential people.

> That said... My  small and pretty insignificant package is already
> licensed "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along".
> If you still think this is "incompatible"

If someone said it's "incompatible" he was confused.


        Stefan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

John Wiegley
>>>>> "SM" == Stefan Monnier <[hidden email]> writes:

SM> I don't know what is the current maintainers's opinion about include
SM> support for LLVM/LLDB/... into Emacs. I'm personally have no issue with
SM> it.

I have no issue with it, either. I think allowing Emacs to interoperate with
other systems extends its reach, which in the end is more helpful, than shying
from the possibility that someone might then prefer to use LLDB over GDB. I
prefer to let the programmer use what he wants to use with Emacs.

--
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by Jean-Christophe Helary
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > I must apologize for the hassle because the script that automatically checked for GPL2+ (or other equivalent wordings) did not catch "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along" and I did not take the time to actually check for myself.

In general, it is risky to make changes in accepted legal wording.
What seems semantically equivalent to hackers like you and me might
have a different legal meaning in some situations.

Could you please show me the full license notice used in that package?
I'd like to check that it is really equivalent and won't give strange
results that perhaps none of us would like.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

Eli Zaretskii
In reply to this post by John Wiegley
> From: John Wiegley <[hidden email]>
> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 16:35:14 -0700
> Cc: [hidden email]
>
> >>>>> "SM" == Stefan Monnier <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> SM> I don't know what is the current maintainers's opinion about include
> SM> support for LLVM/LLDB/... into Emacs. I'm personally have no issue with
> SM> it.
>
> I have no issue with it, either. I think allowing Emacs to interoperate with
> other systems extends its reach, which in the end is more helpful, than shying
> from the possibility that someone might then prefer to use LLDB over GDB. I
> prefer to let the programmer use what he wants to use with Emacs.

I prefer to wait until LLDB implements a decent emulation of the MI
protocol, then we don't have to do anything to support it.  GUD is the
obsolescent interface, modern debugging should use MI.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by John Wiegley
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

"Support for LLVM/LLDB" is too broad to say anything about.  It makes
sense to include support for compiling Emacs with LLVM or debugging it
with LLDB, provided that doesn't require contorting the code.
When it would require that, we should tell them to fix their compiler
and debugger.

Running their programs from Emacs is a different matter.
Through generic interfaces, such as M-x compile, it will just work.
But we should not add code to Emacs to help people
replace GNU tools with competing tools that outflank copyleft.
We should not help defeat our work.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

John Wiegley
>>>>> Richard Stallman <[hidden email]> writes:

> But we should not add code to Emacs to help people replace GNU tools with
> competing tools that outflank copyleft. We should not help defeat our work.

I think the suggested is to add backend support for LLDB if it ever comes to
support MI, and so it should not require too much additional work. Saying that
we won't accept any such work from volunteers, however, would be an
unfortunate decision.

--
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Licence of ts-comint

Eli Zaretskii
> From: John Wiegley <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:54:57 -0700
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
>
> >>>>> Richard Stallman <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > But we should not add code to Emacs to help people replace GNU tools with
> > competing tools that outflank copyleft. We should not help defeat our work.
>
> I think the suggested is to add backend support for LLDB if it ever comes to
> support MI, and so it should not require too much additional work.

LLDB already has MI support, it's just lacking a few commands that
gdb-mi.el expects to be available, without which it is impossible to
start a debugging session.

Someone on the LLVM list recently said they will try to add those
commands.

Loading...