I've trimmed the CC's, and condensed my answers to the various threads
below:
To Bastien: You are doing a good job respecting the code. Thank you.
The original implementation flip-flops between cached and normal classes
(six statements removed in the original patch), whereas my clone adds
and removes a class name from the classList (three statements inserted
in the original patch). I did intend to make a material change which
would create a new public domain implementation of the original API. I
did not intended to disrespect Carsten's work or to detract from it, and
I apologize to anyone who did not consider it to be a good-faith
gesture. I did honestly believe that the org-mode code base would
welcome a public domain clone of the script functionality to resolve the
issue at hand.
To the other participants in the thread: To answer your questions, I
have been around for the evolution of the FSF, the Open Source movement,
and the Creative Commons. I did follow Lawrence Lessig's creation of
CC0. I do understand its role. I have Richard Stallman's book on my
shelf signed "Happy Hacking, Richard Stallman", and I understand that
emacs is his baby. Next are Jessica Litman's and Clay Shirky's, and I
also own Lawrence Lessig's and Siva Vaidhyanathan's (missing,
somewhere...). I did attend Richard Stallman's lecture at Saint
Michael's College, as well as Siva V.'s lecture at Middlebury College. I
value the contributions of all these philosophers.
I have attempted to look for solutions that would solve both bug reports
(license insertion + LibreJS incompatibility) without advocating or
offering opinions on the broader philosophical issues. I hope my
technical contributions are valued, even if they are not accepted.
I did offer an opinion on license insertion: My opinion is that
org-export is a means to save an org-mode file in html format, and that
org-mode authors don't view their documents as derivative works of the
org-export markup. I still believe inserting a license into exported
documents is a mistake.
The FSF encourages authors to choose an approved license for their work,
but my impression is that the FSF is also anxious to avoid the notion
that their products will do so unintentionally. There is a danger that
such an impression would erode their market share, and therefore their
ability to advocate for their mission. This stance is apparent in the
FSF signalling around project pairs like GCC/LLVM, etc., and I imagine
it would apply to equally to emacs, so I think it would be wise to fix
both issues if possible.
Bastien: You certainly have my permission to use my
CodeHighlightOn/CodeHighlightOff implementation as you see fit,
including licensing it under the GPLv3+, and that is a reasonable choice
for you to make. If you happen to agree with the notion that the
org-export output should be license-free, and you want to avoid using a
clone of these functions, a third option would be to remove the script
in question: The functionality is pretty unusual for a document to
trigger, and might not be missed in exchange for a javascript-free
export, but I yield to your ultimate decision.
Thank you
--
Anthony Carrico
