Re: www/prep/maintain/html_node Copyright-Papers.html

[Krzysztof Siewicz]

On 15.01.2025 17:34, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>        I'm sorry but I wasn't familiar with how GNU Coding Standards
>        are edited and I made the below change directly to gnu.org.
>
>        I would like to ensure that it is permanent and is included in
>        the source code. Can someone here help?
>
>     What is the change you want to add? Do you have a diff or
>     something?
>
> I am guessing that it is something like this, please verify ... I'll
> need RMS approval before this can be installed.
>
> @@ -312,8 +312,13 @@
>   
>   GNU packages need not be FSF-copyrighted; this is up to the author(s),
>   generally at the time the package is dubbed GNU@.  When copyright is
> -assigned to the FSF, the FSF can act to stop GPL violations about the
> -package.  Otherwise, legal actions are up to the author(s).  The rest
> +assigned to the FSF, the FSF has authority to act to stop GPL
> +violations about the package (otherwise, legal actions are up to the
> +author(s)).  It also allows us to grant additional permissions on a
> +package, such as an exception, if the need should arise. Additionally,
> +holding the copyright allows us to upgrade the license of a package
> +even if it had been initially released under "GPLv2 only" (instead of
> +the "or later" licensing option as recommended by the FSF). The rest
>   of this section is about the case when a package is FSF-copyrighted.

Yes, this is the change.

It was prepared by the FSF's License Committee (the "we" in my original 
e-mail), consulted and approved by RMS. It's just that I wasn't aware 
that page is administered in this way - so far, I was used to updating 
gnu.org pages with cvs after such consultation process.

> A comment, the use of "us" is confusing -- is it the GNU project or
> the FSF this refers to?  This should probobly be the GNU project, with
> advice from the FSF but I don't know.
Formally, "us" would be the FSF as the copyright holder and thus 
authorized by law to grant permissions etc., but I'm sure it wouldn't be 
done without coordinating with the GNU project.
> I'm considering reverting the change you did to the HTML file, the
> files are generated from Texinfo .. any changes will be overwritten
> the next time those files get regenerated from the canonical sources
> (which have changes that have not been synced yet -- so if I were to
> regenerate the HTML files this change would get lost silently!).

It sounds like the right thing to do, but I would still want the change 
to be implemented in the end. Is my e-mail here sufficient for including 
it in your workflow, or should I do anything more (a proper diff should 
probably be in place, thanks for making it)?

Best,

>
--
Krzysztof Siewicz | Licensing and Compliance Manager, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: 6DC9 E663 36DB 9588 81AB 7E43 2671 24EF FC9C D84E
https://fsf.org

We moved! The FSF changed address, find us at: https://www.fsf.org/about/contact

Free software is important for a free society!
Build a better world with us by matching the average donation of USD $46.22
https://donate.fsf.org

Give the gift of an FSF associate membership:
https://my.fsf.org/gift-a-membership

Follow the FSF on Mastodon: https://hostux.social/@fsf

Sign up for the FSF's newsletter: https://www.fsf.org/fss

US government employee? Use CFC charity code 63210 to support us through
the Combined Federal Campaign. https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/