Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Beverley Eyre]

On 02/01/2009 06:37 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

Andreas Roehler writes:

  >  IMO assignment policy contradicts the spirit of free software.

Please, Andreas, drop this thread.  You are not going to change
anyone's mind.

Here's why:

  >  Copyright is an important issue now, taken very seriously.

Which is as it must be; the threat perceived by the free software
movement is from outside the community.  Of course, the so-called open
source advocates perceive that threat as an opportunity.
Nevertheless, copyright remains important there, too.
   

But not all those whose distributions involves contributions by users force them to 
assign their copyright. The "free software"
movement hasn't chosen that path, other than the FSF afaik. Certainly Xemacs, 
TeX, LaTeX haven't.


Stephen Turnbull wrote:


It is helpful.  The GNU Project's mission is to preserve a body of
code sufficient to support a free operating system, and it is the
FSF's job to provide legal support for that.  The assignment allows
the FSF to defend code you contribute on your behalf, at no cost to
you.  It would be far more costly to defend the code if it were not
assigned.
   

That's not so, Stephen. Again, look at some of the other applications that are 
in a similar position. You should read
the LaTeX license. An early section of it states:

"The document `modguide.tex' in the base LaTeX distribution explains
the motivation behind the conditions of this license.  It explains,
for example, why distributing LaTeX under the GNU General Public
License (GPL) was considered inappropriate."

I think that their structure is well conceived and protects both the integrity 
and functionality of the LaTeX source
and packages submitted by users without any need to assign copyrights. Their 
situation and that of GNU Emacs seems
very similar to me (note caveat).

Bev

___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Beverley Eyre]

Andreas wrote:


IMO assignment policy contradicts the spirit of free software.
It shows very unpleasant damages in mind
already. Copyright is an important issue now, taken
very seriously. Before code was exchanged freely, as
Richard told nicely the very beginnings of the
movement. Meanwhile we came to the opposite: jealously
and meticulous line counting habits.

Assignment stifles cooperation rather then being helpful.

   



My offer was and is: let's cooperate. There are enough
things to do beside pure code-writing. Nor should the
assignment nor the GPL-versions-question block
cooperation completely. We must respect hindrances as
it exists, that's right.

   

I find that, in all this discussion, only Andreas and I seem to be talking 
about the big picture rather than debating legal points.

From my pov, I volunteer to help a worthy effort to make an emacs mode that I 
frequently use better, and suddenly I'm being menaced by
a representative of a powerful organization, telling me to ceases and desist 
immediately or face potential legal action. This scenario
rings a bell.

This is from wikipedia on rms' page:
"In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the hacker culture that Stallman thrived in 
began to fragment. To prevent software from
being used on their competitors' computers, most manufacturers stopped 
distributing source code and began using copyright
and restrictive software licenses to limit or prohibit copying and 
redistribution."

Hmmm.. "...began using copyright and restrictive software licenses to limit or 
prohibit copying and redistribution."


Dave said in a previous email that it was bizarre that I should try to lecture 
him on the original impetus that
motivated those who started the open source movement. But from where I sit, 
some of those involved have lost their way.
Whether it's Microsoft menacing me with lawyers so I don't use their code, or 
GNU.org menacing me with lawyers so I don't
use their code, is irrelevant. It all looks the same from here.

In my first reply to Dave I asked whether it would be possible to cooperate in 
this endeavor. Andreas just asked again. Personally,
I don't really care whether any product of a 'merge' effort is distributed with 
Emacs. If you have to get it from python.org, that's fine
with me, and really, not a bad idea. Maybe we can agree up-front that a new 
python-mode.el won't be distributed with GNU Emacs and join forces
to write a better mode for python users with the 'assignment' issue out of the 
way once and for all.

Bev




___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Andreas Roehler writes:

 > IMO assignment policy contradicts the spirit of free software.

Please, Andreas, drop this thread.  You are not going to change
anyone's mind.

Here's why:

 > Copyright is an important issue now, taken very seriously.

Which is as it must be; the threat perceived by the free software
movement is from outside the community.  Of course, the so-called open
source advocates perceive that threat as an opportunity.
Nevertheless, copyright remains important there, too.

 > Assignment stifles cooperation

True (aside from the exaggeration inherent in "stifle").  That is an
unavoidable side effect of a policy that is necessary from one point
of view.

 > rather then being helpful.

It is helpful.  The GNU Project's mission is to preserve a body of
code sufficient to support a free operating system, and it is the
FSF's job to provide legal support for that.  The assignment allows
the FSF to defend code you contribute on your behalf, at no cost to
you.  It would be far more costly to defend the code if it were not
assigned.

*You* may not find that helpful, and there's nothing wrong with your
perception if not.  But many others do, and a lot of good has come of
that.

 > My offer was and is: let's cooperate.

In all sincerity, good luck to you!  It's not easy, though.


___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Andreas Roehler]

Dave Love wrote:
> Andreas Roehler  writes:
> 
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 
>>> For this audience, I'll restate my position, vis-à-vis python-mode.
>>>
>>> I assert that Tim Peters and myself have assigned copyright in
>>> python-mode.el to the FSF.
> 
> For this audience, again:  Unfortunately the FSF only has an assignment
> from Tim Peters, and when I tried to get one from Barry some years go,
> the problem was that it needed papers from his employer.  (Several of us
> had tried to get full paperwork for python-mode.el, maybe including rms.
> The authorship of all the code wasn't clear at that stage, so it may not
> have been profitable anyway.  I've no doubt that Barry wants to DTRT in
> this respect, and I wouldn't have spent the effort on separate code if
> it looked as if we had a reasonable chance of complete paperwork. 

IMO assignment policy contradicts the spirit of free software.
It shows very unpleasant damages in mind
already. Copyright is an important issue now, taken
very seriously. Before code was exchanged freely, as
Richard told nicely the very beginnings of the
movement. Meanwhile we came to the opposite: jealously
and meticulous line counting habits.

Assignment stifles cooperation rather then being helpful.

 If
> the employer isn't now a problem, maybe an assignment for future
> contributions would be useful.)
> 
>>> I want it to be possible from a legal standpoint to merge python-mode.el
>>> and python.el, taking the best and most popular features and
>>> functionality from each.  I think python-mode.el should form the basis
>>> of the merge, with code pulled in from python.el as needed.
> 
> Current maintainers may disagree, but I don't think popularity with
> Python programmers trumps the Emacs coding conventions.  Still, the only
> missing things I've heard of either violate the conventions or aren't
> specific to Python and should be elsewhere, or already are.
> 
>> Difference is not at the level of feature-function, but
>> from the very beginning. It's a little bit the same as
>> with GNU and XEmacs: you can't merge with reasonable
>> cost and result now.
> 
> Yes, this follows what's mostly happened with XEmacs historically.  It's
> not a question of merging now, though -- this was all long ago.
> 
>> From this some chances too: Not every feature once
>> implemented turns out useful. Not every feature is
>> needed by everyone.
> 
> After working with and on python-mode.el, I did take the opportunity to
> try to write something clean without undue mis-features.

That was a general remark, in no way aimed at your code.
Let me take the opportunity to assert you: I'm well
respecting the work.

My offer was and is: let's cooperate. There are enough
things to do beside pure code-writing. Nor should the
assignment nor the GPL-versions-question block
cooperation completely. We must respect hindrances as
it exists, that's right.


> 
>> I would welcome a friendly, sportive concurrence. So if
>> Dave may tell, what's the point of python.el is in
>> contrast to python-mode.el, I'm interested to read.
> 
> We wanted decent Python support for and in Emacs.  There's commentary in
> the file, although it may not be complete.
> 

___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Dave Love]

Andreas Roehler  writes:

> Barry Warsaw wrote:

>> For this audience, I'll restate my position, vis-à-vis python-mode.
>> 
>> I assert that Tim Peters and myself have assigned copyright in
>> python-mode.el to the FSF.

For this audience, again:  Unfortunately the FSF only has an assignment
from Tim Peters, and when I tried to get one from Barry some years go,
the problem was that it needed papers from his employer.  (Several of us
had tried to get full paperwork for python-mode.el, maybe including rms.
The authorship of all the code wasn't clear at that stage, so it may not
have been profitable anyway.  I've no doubt that Barry wants to DTRT in
this respect, and I wouldn't have spent the effort on separate code if
it looked as if we had a reasonable chance of complete paperwork.  If
the employer isn't now a problem, maybe an assignment for future
contributions would be useful.)

>> I want it to be possible from a legal standpoint to merge python-mode.el
>> and python.el, taking the best and most popular features and
>> functionality from each.  I think python-mode.el should form the basis
>> of the merge, with code pulled in from python.el as needed.

Current maintainers may disagree, but I don't think popularity with
Python programmers trumps the Emacs coding conventions.  Still, the only
missing things I've heard of either violate the conventions or aren't
specific to Python and should be elsewhere, or already are.

> Difference is not at the level of feature-function, but
> from the very beginning. It's a little bit the same as
> with GNU and XEmacs: you can't merge with reasonable
> cost and result now.

Yes, this follows what's mostly happened with XEmacs historically.  It's
not a question of merging now, though -- this was all long ago.

> From this some chances too: Not every feature once
> implemented turns out useful. Not every feature is
> needed by everyone.

After working with and on python-mode.el, I did take the opportunity to
try to write something clean without undue mis-features.

> I would welcome a friendly, sportive concurrence. So if
> Dave may tell, what's the point of python.el is in
> contrast to python-mode.el, I'm interested to read.

We wanted decent Python support for and in Emacs.  There's commentary in
the file, although it may not be complete.

-- 
We want to cooperate, but we are not doormats.  -- rms
___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Barry Warsaw]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I've just released python-mode.el 5.1.0:

https://launchpad.net/python-mode/trunk/5.1.0

Since 5.0.0, this fixes a problem with syntax highlighting None, and  
places the file under the GPLv3.


Barry

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBSYIGgHEjvBPtnXfVAQIaiwQAsIso85sDuWwfpFscsRl8+g/AxSwH/Kpc
WlwtgQ/4nOg6hGXMBy1oCoYLDiv2bIHJR9b6Wj2NhBikm/BUiTUy5Z5k1N4d1DZr
UseIM0JZ0l8mUFIP9VaMqvmHICuSjEt++KZl4ftbINB/gNgMvVThsaoHsX4gGWfo
0QT6VZZk2h0=
=H94V
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Andreas Roehler]

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Andreas Roehler wrote:
> 
>> as FSF assignment policy was raised again at
>> python-mode@python.org, please permit to ask you a
>> thing I never understood:
> 
>> AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others
>> from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty
>> of revisions with a lot of people involved.
> 
>> So how a single developer could ever declare what the
>> assignment formula demands? How could any person
>> declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus
>> assigning it.
> 
>> Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a
>> kind of forgery? Making them false declarations,
>> thus having rights about them, being everyday able to
>> sue them for these false declarations?
> 
>> Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream?
> 
> For this audience, I'll restate my position, vis-à-vis python-mode.
> 
> I assert that Tim Peters and myself have assigned copyright in
> python-mode.el to the FSF.   I believe that Ken Manheimer has done the
> same, and I believe that Skip Montanaro has tried to do so several times
> in the past.  This should cover the majority if not the entirety of the
> current python-mode.el file.
> 
> I want it to be possible from a legal standpoint to merge python-mode.el
> and python.el, taking the best and most popular features and
> functionality from each.  I think python-mode.el should form the basis
> of the merge, with code pulled in from python.el as needed.
> 
> Andreas has the current momentum pumpkin for working on python-mode.el,
> so I want to find a way for him to do this while still retaining the
> ability to merge the two modes. Note that Andreas, AFAIK has not
> volunteered to do this merge, although others on the
> python-mode@python.org mailing list have expressed interest.  If Andreas
> is unwilling to assign copyright to the FSF, then perhaps some other
> mechanism will be acceptable to him and to the FSF.  Please explore this
> possibility.
> 
> Thanks
> Barry
> 

Hi Barry,

thanks a lot investing that much care in the matter.

For me --due to FSF assignment -- XEmacs
represents much more the principle of four freedoms than
GNU Emacs now.

Incidentally that's the reason I changed my focus from
GNU to X. So originally a pure political change, I'm
not unhappy now. And yes: XEm looks nicer... :)

Concerning the intended merge, let me say it again: IMO
its technically impossible.

As Dave wrote: proceeding differs profoundly and
deliberately. We have two different modes now which
implement respective features in a different way.

Difference is not at the level of feature-function, but
from the very beginning. It's a little bit the same as
with GNU and XEmacs: you can't merge with reasonable
cost and result now.

>From this some chances too: Not every feature once
implemented turns out useful. Not every feature is
needed by everyone.

I would welcome a friendly, sportive concurrence. So if
Dave may tell, what's the point of python.el is in
contrast to python-mode.el, I'm interested to read.

Maybe we should consider development as a kind of
climbing: at least one team must get the peak. From the
users perspective --which should be the final measure--
it doesn't matter which team wins.

Back to politics: As we have a GNU backed python.el, it
seems reasonable to proceed --waving the flag of
freedom :)-- with a XEmacs associated python-mode.el.


Thanks all

Andreas Röhler
___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Andreas Roehler writes:

 > The question already touched so far is, if or how copyright might
 > declared with respect to programs.

Sure, but that is entirely irrelevant to the assignment issue.  The
assignment policy takes current copyright law as given.

So I don't think this is a useful conversation to have on python-mode
or xemacs-beta at this time.  Better gnu.misc.discuss or so.

 > That's why giving it free is ok and best. Then copyright is no
 > longer a danger.

This is something that is relevant to python-mode, but not really to
xemacs-beta, since XEmacs has no assignment policy and is unlikely to
get one AFAICS.  If you want a change in Emacs's policy, you'll need
to do direct lobbying of the FSF officers and/or Emacs maintainers:
xemacs-beta and python-mode have no power there.

I will say that opinions diverge dramatically on the efficacy of
various possible ways of "neutralizing" copyright.  AFAICS the Emacs
Project is not about to change its assignment policy.  If you do not
want to assign your work, you can dedicate it to the public domain,
for example.  But if you do not do something that allows the FSF
control over derived code (ie, code written by others based on your
code), AIUI it will not be possible for a merged package incorporating
your contributions to be accepted into Emacs.

I don't have a strong preference one way or the other; if you don't
(or do!) want to assign, I'm not going to ask you to reconsider.  But
you should remember that failing to assign will inherently cause more
work for you, and also may increase friction within your community.
To mitigate that, I would be mildly pleased if you assigned your
rights to any merger of python.el and python-mode.el to the FSF.
___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Richard M Stallman]

AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others
from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty
of revisions with a lot of people involved.

Inspiration is irrelevant to copyright law.  It is concerned
with the authorship of the code.

If a file has been in Emacs for many years, often many people have
changed it.  But typically when a file is first contributed, only a few
people have worked on the code.  They can honestly sign the assignments.
___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Andreas Roehler]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, and I don't speak for the FSF or the Emacs Project.
> I do speak for the XEmacs Project until such time as someone feels
> like complaining about it. :-)
> 
> Andreas Roehler writes:
> 
>  > as FSF assignment policy was raised again at
>  > python-mode@python.org, please permit to ask you a
>  > thing I never understood:
>  > 
>  > AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others
>  > from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty
>  > of revisions with a lot of people involved.
> 
> AIUI, this is one of the motivations for the free software movement:
> each program created is a joint creation of the apparent author(s),
> and of the community around them.  (I'm pretty sure Richard would say
> it's not the most important motivation, but I suppose he will
> acknowledge it.)
> 
> Nevertheless, software *also* exists in a legal environment, and the
> assignment policy (like the GPL) is a compromise between the *goal* of
> software freedom and the *limited means* provided[1] by that legal
> system for implementing software freedom.
> 
>  > So how a single developer could ever declare what the
>  > assignment formula demands? How could any person
>  > declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus
>  > assigning it.
> 
> For starters, he doesn't make such a declaration about "the" code.  He
> makes that declaration about his own contribution.  The way he
> acquires that power is simple: he writes some code down.  That's all
> it takes!  Whether he publishes or not.  Then, according to the Berne
> Convention and other applicable treaties, he is automatically awarded
> such copyright privileges as are created by the law of each
> jurisdiction in which the software is available.
> 
> Exactly what privileges he is awarded are determined by the local
> laws, and which parts of the software are "his" are determined in
> principle by the law, and in practice by a court if his claims are
> contested.  In other words, the question you are asking is not posed
> by the assignment policy, but rather by the very existence of
> copyright itself.  The assignment policy, then, is one of an array of
> policies (including advocacy of copyleft licenses, for example)
> adopted by the free software movement to preserve software freedom, in
> the context of such a legal system.
> 
>  > Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a
>  > kind of forgery? Making them false declarations,
>  > thus having rights about them, being everyday able to
>  > sue them for these false declarations?
> 
> No.  There is no forgery, assuming you make the claim in good faith.
> You may still be liable for infringement if you are mistaken about the
> extent of your rights, just as you may be liable for an automobile
> accident if the car in front of you stops without warning for no
> apparent reason and you run into it.
> 
>  > Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream?
> 
> There is no law in the U.S. or Japan about "making declarations", I
> don't know about Europe.  That is, the fact that you assign what you
> believe to be your code to another party does not increase your risk,
> per se.  What matters is if you make or enable copies, or the assignee
> does.  But for free software, the risk imposed by assignee-made copies
> is precisely the same as the risk imposed by GPL-licensee-made copies.
> In other words, if the risk involved in assigning your code bothers
> you, what are you doing participating in free software at all?
> 
> However, the idemnity clause of the standard FSF assignment contract
> may increase your risk, since you're required to defend the FSF as
> well as yourself.  Ask a lawyer if that bothers you.
> 
> Note: I personally am not particularly a fan of the assignment policy,
> though the recent trend in many projects to adopt such a policy may
> force me to reconsider that position.  However, the objections you
> seem to have in mind really apply to copyright itself, and the
> assignment policy is just shadowing it.

Precisely.

The question already touched so far is, if or how copyright might declared with
respect to programs.

Is copyright a useful term with respect to computer programs?

I say: no. You, Steve, knows that very well. Some days ago we discussed
"beginning-of-defun-function".

Reflection was: maybe implement it differently then GNU function.

Why not, no matter.

Now, can you implement a poem from --say-- Allan Ginsberg differently
then Ginsberg did?

You can't. And that's the different between the realm, where copyright
makes some sense and where it's nonsense.

You may be condemed for nonsense, wars are declared for nonsense, yes.
Nonsense is a real existing force.

But let's consider another aspect of dangers I see coming:

Copyright always was and is a weapon to witheld things.
It might turn into a terrible weapon with computers, if people
depend on them.

That's why giving it free is ok and best. Then copyright is no longer a danger.

So why coll

[Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

I am not a lawyer, and I don't speak for the FSF or the Emacs Project.
I do speak for the XEmacs Project until such time as someone feels
like complaining about it. :-)

Andreas Roehler writes:

 > as FSF assignment policy was raised again at
 > python-mode@python.org, please permit to ask you a
 > thing I never understood:
 > 
 > AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others
 > from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty
 > of revisions with a lot of people involved.

AIUI, this is one of the motivations for the free software movement:
each program created is a joint creation of the apparent author(s),
and of the community around them.  (I'm pretty sure Richard would say
it's not the most important motivation, but I suppose he will
acknowledge it.)

Nevertheless, software *also* exists in a legal environment, and the
assignment policy (like the GPL) is a compromise between the *goal* of
software freedom and the *limited means* provided[1] by that legal
system for implementing software freedom.

 > So how a single developer could ever declare what the
 > assignment formula demands? How could any person
 > declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus
 > assigning it.

For starters, he doesn't make such a declaration about "the" code.  He
makes that declaration about his own contribution.  The way he
acquires that power is simple: he writes some code down.  That's all
it takes!  Whether he publishes or not.  Then, according to the Berne
Convention and other applicable treaties, he is automatically awarded
such copyright privileges as are created by the law of each
jurisdiction in which the software is available.

Exactly what privileges he is awarded are determined by the local
laws, and which parts of the software are "his" are determined in
principle by the law, and in practice by a court if his claims are
contested.  In other words, the question you are asking is not posed
by the assignment policy, but rather by the very existence of
copyright itself.  The assignment policy, then, is one of an array of
policies (including advocacy of copyleft licenses, for example)
adopted by the free software movement to preserve software freedom, in
the context of such a legal system.

 > Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a
 > kind of forgery? Making them false declarations,
 > thus having rights about them, being everyday able to
 > sue them for these false declarations?

No.  There is no forgery, assuming you make the claim in good faith.
You may still be liable for infringement if you are mistaken about the
extent of your rights, just as you may be liable for an automobile
accident if the car in front of you stops without warning for no
apparent reason and you run into it.

 > Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream?

There is no law in the U.S. or Japan about "making declarations", I
don't know about Europe.  That is, the fact that you assign what you
believe to be your code to another party does not increase your risk,
per se.  What matters is if you make or enable copies, or the assignee
does.  But for free software, the risk imposed by assignee-made copies
is precisely the same as the risk imposed by GPL-licensee-made copies.
In other words, if the risk involved in assigning your code bothers
you, what are you doing participating in free software at all?

However, the idemnity clause of the standard FSF assignment contract
may increase your risk, since you're required to defend the FSF as
well as yourself.  Ask a lawyer if that bothers you.

Note: I personally am not particularly a fan of the assignment policy,
though the recent trend in many projects to adopt such a policy may
force me to reconsider that position.  However, the objections you
seem to have in mind really apply to copyright itself, and the
assignment policy is just shadowing it.

Regards,
Steve

Footnotes: 
[1]  Or barriers presented, if you will.

___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Barry Warsaw]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Jan 27, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Andreas Roehler wrote:

Well, that not so easy. Things are much more serious IMO. In any  
case programs
published here will be GPL as far as it concerns me, so it shouldn't  
matter for

the user if its assigned to FSF or not.


The python-mode.el's header is currently a bit ambiguous as to  
copyright ownership and license.  The last asserted copyright in the  
file is from 1994 by Tim Peters.  I know that Tim has since assigned  
his copyright to the FSF.


I'm willing to change that line to "Copyright 2009 Free Software  
Foundation" and slap a GPL license on the file.  I think we're in  
legal rights to do this.


Please note that we resisted the GPL for a long time because python- 
mode.el was distributed with Python.  All code in the Python  
distribution should have the PSF license and specifically cannot have  
the GPL.  Now that python-mode.el has been distributed separately for  
a long time, this restriction no longer applies.


Barry

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBSX8gnXEjvBPtnXfVAQJR1gP/YdEHO+rSOoH0UbcPhoD+JgvftMAe0d8K
kKJx6XnimT3vANrZCkWoAE5ijHO8cx7RoSPr2itvZgqIg+WM9GpRK/BUwmnRJz/f
UOcX6t3HRXirmp7uj5kXr0SQQYMYAoe2o36HzPg6vtjb7zK+yQGVHrbe4Hq9XQm/
IUM/nUWofzE=
=T6va
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Barry Warsaw]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Andreas Roehler wrote:


as FSF assignment policy was raised again at
python-mode@python.org, please permit to ask you a
thing I never understood:

AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others
from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty
of revisions with a lot of people involved.

So how a single developer could ever declare what the
assignment formula demands? How could any person
declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus
assigning it.

Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a
kind of forgery? Making them false declarations,
thus having rights about them, being everyday able to
sue them for these false declarations?

Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream?


For this audience, I'll restate my position, vis-à-vis python-mode.

I assert that Tim Peters and myself have assigned copyright in python- 
mode.el to the FSF.   I believe that Ken Manheimer has done the same,  
and I believe that Skip Montanaro has tried to do so several times in  
the past.  This should cover the majority if not the entirety of the  
current python-mode.el file.


I want it to be possible from a legal standpoint to merge python- 
mode.el and python.el, taking the best and most popular features and  
functionality from each.  I think python-mode.el should form the basis  
of the merge, with code pulled in from python.el as needed.


Andreas has the current momentum pumpkin for working on python- 
mode.el, so I want to find a way for him to do this while still  
retaining the ability to merge the two modes. Note that Andreas, AFAIK  
has not volunteered to do this merge, although others on the python-mode@python.org 
 mailing list have expressed interest.  If Andreas is unwilling to  
assign copyright to the FSF, then perhaps some other mechanism will be  
acceptable to him and to the FSF.  Please explore this possibility.


Thanks
Barry

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBSX8fv3EjvBPtnXfVAQLmIQP+PEmVj8VAScnjy7VqMTWiDlAQGIk18m++
//9mPWX0/v30dzaeCJqQclnde229I6sLQf0hshRRUUcBwKvbrGmZB6ehBHLI+u1P
fSDsThQsN46rhnnpmloMxONXVJ4g4ubuDTsjUNy8Pixj7MHTBkqxgNhPBQO42twf
/xu4vVhjj5g=
=pr3h
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Andreas Roehler]

Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> Andreas Roehler wrote:
>> Hi (X)Emacs folks,
>>
>> as FSF assignment policy was raised again at
>> python-mode@python.org, please permit to ask you a
>> thing I never understood:
>>
>> AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others
>> from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty
>> of revisions with a lot of people involved.
>>
>> So how a single developer could ever declare what the
>> assignment formula demands? How could any person
>> declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus
>> assigning it.
>>
>> Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a
>> kind of forgery? Making them false declarations,
>> thus having rights about them, being everyday able to
>> sue them for these false declarations?
>>
>> Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream?
> 
> actually, I would call it an affectation.  Before my hands failed, I could
> afford the luxury of a strict GPL stance.  After all, I had no trouble taking 
> a
> few extra steps for political purity.  Now, I live by the rule that
> functionality trumps politics.  I do what I must so I can earn a living using
> whatever tools I have available.  EULA's or GPL, I ignore licensing 
> restrictions
> if they get in the way.
> 
> I now see political stances on licensing as an affectation to gain attention.
> These attitudes have led us to ignoring many good pieces of software ignoring
> (JFS.ZFS) and people putting effort into redundant work (est4,btrfs).  It has
> kept Linux having good handicapped accessibility, especially in my area of
> interest, accessible via speech recognition.  We have a good solution with
> NaturallySpeaking and wine but, it's not ideologically pure.
> 
> As you can see, I only see these licensing arguments as an impediment to 
> people
> getting things done with a minimum amount of effort.  You've created some
> changes that I am trying to incorporate into a speech grammar and for that I'm
> thankful. 

Great to hear. Don't hesitate to tell which things you need still, what Emacs
should do in which circumstances.

Some reporting mode, saying after a close-block etc. where you are, what has 
been closed,
is worked on already.

BTW: Do have a site with your implementation which I could visit?

Should you know some stuff to read about the issue, please tell.

 Do me a favor, hold your nose, and just sign the damn papers

Well, that not so easy. Things are much more serious IMO. In any case programs
published here will be GPL as far as it concerns me, so it shouldn't matter for
the user if its assigned to FSF or not.

 and
> let's get on with the task at hand.
> 
> 
> ---eric
> 

___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

Re: [Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Eric S. Johansson]

Andreas Roehler wrote:
> Hi (X)Emacs folks,
> 
> as FSF assignment policy was raised again at
> python-mode@python.org, please permit to ask you a
> thing I never understood:
> 
> AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others
> from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty
> of revisions with a lot of people involved.
> 
> So how a single developer could ever declare what the
> assignment formula demands? How could any person
> declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus
> assigning it.
> 
> Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a
> kind of forgery? Making them false declarations,
> thus having rights about them, being everyday able to
> sue them for these false declarations?
> 
> Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream?

actually, I would call it an affectation.  Before my hands failed, I could
afford the luxury of a strict GPL stance.  After all, I had no trouble taking a
few extra steps for political purity.  Now, I live by the rule that
functionality trumps politics.  I do what I must so I can earn a living using
whatever tools I have available.  EULA's or GPL, I ignore licensing restrictions
if they get in the way.

I now see political stances on licensing as an affectation to gain attention.
These attitudes have led us to ignoring many good pieces of software ignoring
(JFS.ZFS) and people putting effort into redundant work (est4,btrfs).  It has
kept Linux having good handicapped accessibility, especially in my area of
interest, accessible via speech recognition.  We have a good solution with
NaturallySpeaking and wine but, it's not ideologically pure.

As you can see, I only see these licensing arguments as an impediment to people
getting things done with a minimum amount of effort.  You've created some
changes that I am trying to incorporate into a speech grammar and for that I'm
thankful.  Do me a favor, hold your nose, and just sign the damn papers and
let's get on with the task at hand.


---eric
___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode

[Python-mode] FSF assignment policy

[Andreas Roehler]

Hi (X)Emacs folks,

as FSF assignment policy was raised again at
python-mode@python.org, please permit to ask you a
thing I never understood:

AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others
from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty
of revisions with a lot of people involved.

So how a single developer could ever declare what the
assignment formula demands? How could any person
declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus
assigning it.

Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a
kind of forgery? Making them false declarations,
thus having rights about them, being everyday able to
sue them for these false declarations?

Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream?

Sincerely

Andreas Röhler
___
Python-mode mailing list
Python-mode@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode