procyberian/emacs
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

*** empty log message ***

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Glenn Morris 2007-02-15 03:24:44 +00:00
parent 96f7fe5ea1
commit c320d3b82d
1 changed files with 141 additions and 28 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

169
admin/notes/copyright
View file

@ -54,6 +54,10 @@ license notice looks odd. Matt Norwood has confirmed it is not
_necessary_ to have licenses in such files, so we are sticking with
the policy of no licenses in "trivial" files.
NB consequently, if you add a lot of text to a small file, consider
whether your changes have made the file worthy of a copyright notice,
and if so, please add one.
The years in the copyright notice should be updated every year (see
file "years" in this directory). The PS versions of refcards etc
should display copyright notices (an exception to the rule about
@ -129,6 +133,7 @@ lispintro/install-sh
- this file is copyright MIT, which is OK. Leave the copyright alone.
admin/check-doc-strings
src/m/news-r6.h
public domain, leave alone.
etc/edt-user.doc
@ -138,6 +143,9 @@ etc/letter.pbm,letter.xpm
- trivial, no notice needed.
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00324.html>
etc/FTP, ORDERS
- trivial (at time of writing), no license needed
etc/GNU, INTERVIEW, LINUX-GNU, MOTIVATION, SERVICE, THE-GNU-PROJECT,
WHY-FREE
rms: "These are statements of opinion or testimony. Their licenses
@ -203,6 +211,9 @@ src/acldef.h, chpdef.h, ndir.h
if you can clarify its legal status.
** Some notes on resolved issues, for historical information only
*** These are copyright issues that need not be fixed until after
Emacs 22 is released (though if they can be fixed before, that is
obviously good):
@ -219,9 +230,23 @@ Make sure that all files with non-standard copyrights or licenses are
noted in this file.
etc/BABYL
File says it was written in 1983 by Eugene Ciccarelli, who has no
assignment. RMS: "The lawyer said we can keep BABYL."
etc/images/icons/*
nt/icons/emacs21.ico
src/gnu.h
Has Andrew Zhilin's 2005-11 assignment been correctly noted in
copyright.list? Mail sent to fsf-records.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-11/msg00349.html
REMOVED etc/orgcard.tex, orgcard.ps
Re-add these files if an assignment is received from Rooke.
etc/images
Image files from GTK, Gnome are under GPLv2 (no "or later"?). RMS will
contact image authors in regards to future switch to v3.
@ -246,26 +271,27 @@ REMOVED src/unexhp9k800.c
if you can clarify its legal status.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00138.html
etc/BABYL
RMS: "The lawyer said we can keep BABYL."
*** These are copyright issues still to be addressed:
NB apart from switching the TUTORIALs to GPL, I think there is nothing
here that anyone can work on without further input from rms.
Maybe some relevant comments here?
<http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_thread/thread/123547ea95437a1f>
All README (and other such files) that are non-trivial and were added
by Emacs developers need copyright statements and copying permissions.
lisp/term/README?
borderline "trivial" cases (see below)...?
These should use the standard GPL text (same as .el files), rather
than the short notices we have been using till now.
All non-trivial README (and other such files) need copyright and
license statements. Use GPL in most cases, rather than the short
notices we have been using till now. NB but see above for some
exceptions in etc/ that should stay unchanged.
rms: "If a README file is under 60 lines long, using the long version
might be ugly. Please tell me if you encounter one that is under 60
lines."
[of the GPL notice] might be ugly. Please tell me if you encounter one
that is under 60 lines."
lisp/term/README (ChangeLog.3 suggests was written by Eric Raymond)
borderline "trivial" cases
etc/gnus-logo.eps, gnus-booklet.ps, gnus-refcard.ps
@ -273,9 +299,8 @@ etc/gnus-logo.eps, gnus-booklet.ps, gnus-refcard.ps
though it is very similar to the already-assigned "Emacs logo".
etc/emacs.csh (+ maybe etc/DISTRIB?)
does rms want the older, simple license for this put back? If so,
what about emacs.bash?
etc/emacs.csh, emacs.bash, DISTRIB
does rms want GPL or simple license for these?
etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one
@ -284,12 +309,9 @@ etc/e/eterm-color.ti - no copyright
because the entries are all forced. At least that is the case in the
US; I am not sure whether we can rely on that in general."
For the above files, mail sent from rms to Matthew Norwood
asking what to do (via Eben Moglen), 2007/1/22 ("Copyright years").
etc/TUTORIAL*
switch to GPL, or keep older license?
switch to GPL
lib-src/etags.c - no 'k.* arnold' in copyright.list'
@ -297,35 +319,126 @@ lib-src/etags.c - no 'k.* arnold' in copyright.list'
Arnold as the starting point. However, it may be that we need to get
and insert whatever his license was for his code."
under GPL, so OK?
- 1984 version of ctags, with no copyright, posted to net.sources:
http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d
lwlib/lwlib-int.h, lwlib.h - no copyright
lwlib/Makefile.in, lwlib-utils.c, lwlib.c - copyright Lucid
lwlib/lwlib-Xaw.c - copyright Chuck Thompson
lwlib/lwlib.c - copyright Lucid, but FSF copyright was added in 2002 -
was that correct?
rms: "I asked Matthew Norwood about these, I believe."
lwlib/lwlib-Xaw.c
copyright Chuck Thompson; but under GPL, so OK?
lwlib/lwlib-Xlw.c, lwlib-Xm.c, lwlib-Xm.h, xlwmenu.c
copyright lucid and FSF, but under GPL, so OK?
FSF copyrights were added in 200x, was that right?
lwlib/lwlib-int.h, lwlib.h, lwlib-Xaw.h, lwlib-Xlw.h, lwlib-utils.h
no copyright. last three trivial?
suspect these must have been part of the "Lucid Widget Library",
which is under GPL. Can't find an original version of this to check.
lwlib/Makefile.in
"some parts" copyright Lucid, no license
lwlib/lwlib-utils.c, lwlib.c
copyright Lucid, Inc; but under GPL, so OK?
lwlib/xlwmenu.h, xlwmenuP.h
part of 'Lucid Widget Library', but only FSF copyright (when files
were first checked into RCS, there were no copyrights). Was it right
to add FSF copyright?
should we add a 1992 Lucid copyright?
lwlib/*
should we:
1) ensure all files that were originally in the "Lucid Widget
Library" have 1992 Lucid copyright?
2) add or remove FSF copyrights to any files we have made non-trivial
changes to since 1992?
oldXMenu/
- should there be any FSF copyrights at all in here? Some were added
in 2005, without licence notices. Was this right?
Eg don't think copyright.h should have FSF copyright!
Should add copyright details for X11R1 to the README file. (see
copyright.h). I suggest we remove copyright.h and add the notices
directly into the files.
The general issue is, as with some of the Lucid code in lwlib, suppose
file foo.c is Copyright (C) 2000 John Smith, and released under the
GPL. We check it into Emacs CVS and make non-trivial changes to it.
Should we add a FSF copyright or not? Can we add such a notice as soon
as we check it check it in to CVS?
oldXMenu/Makefile.in, Makefile, Imakefile, descrip.mms, insque.c
- issues described in mail to rms, 2006/12/17.
rms: "I have asked for lawyer's advice about these."
src/gnu.h
src/m/mips4.h, news-r6.h, news-risc.h, pmax.h
src/m/mips4.h, news-risc.h, pmax.h
src/s/aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, irix4-0.h, irix5-0.h,
isc2-2.h, netbsd.h, osf1.h, sol2-3.h, sunos4-0.h, usg5-4-2.h
- all these (not obviously trivial) files are missing copyrights.
rms: "I should talk about these with Matthew Norwood."
The current legal advice seems to be that we should attach FSF
copyright and GPL for the time being, then review post-release. But it
is still under discussion.
copyright and GPL for the time being, then review post-release:
Matt Norwood:
For now, I think the best policy is to assume that we do have
assignments from the authors (I recall many of these header files
as having been originally written by rms), and to attach an FSF
copyright with GPL notice. We can amend this if and when we
complete the code audit. Any additions to these files by
non-assigned authors are arguably "de minimis" contributions to
Emacs: small changes or suggestions to a work that are subsumed in
the main authors' copyright in the entire work.
Details:
mips4.h
might be trivial? started trivial, been added to in tiny changes by
those with FSF assignment, often result of email suggestions by others.
news-risc.h
started trivial. Grown by tiny additions, plus chunk
from mips.h, which was and is Copyright FSF
pmax.h
started trivial. grown in tiny changes, except for maybe Jim Wilson's
comment.
? irix4-0.h
I would say started non-trivial (1992, rms). only tiny changes since
installed.
? irix5-0.h
I would say started non-trivial (1993, jimb, heavily based
on irix4-0.h). A few borderline non-tiny changes since.
? isc2-2.h
started trivial. 2 non-tiny change, in 1993. looks to
be made up of several small tweaks from various sources. maybe
non-tiny total changes from Karl Berry (no emacs assignment).
osf1.h
started trivial. grown in tiny changes (one borderline tiny change
by fx in 2000, but most code was later removed). non-tiny addition
in 2002 from m/alpha.h, but that was and is copyright FSF.
usg5-4-2.h
started non-trivial, but was heavily based on usg5-4.h, which was and is
copyright FSF. only tiny changes since installed.
sol2-3.h
started trivial. only non-tiny change (1994) incorporated code from
usg5-4.h, which was and is copyright FSF.
aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, netbsd.h, sunos4-0.h
started trivial, grown in tiny changes.
This file is part of GNU Emacs.