help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Basic legal question: Publication of a fix to psgml


From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: Re: Basic legal question: Publication of a fix to psgml
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:54:43 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4

Am 02.04.2013 10:54, schrieb Nicolas Neuss:
Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

Hi,

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:

When using GPLed code, you may simply publish your changed code
GPLed again.

More precisely, GPLed code gives you the right to reuse and publish
the code in your code if it's published under the same license.

So yes, you can publish your changes to this code.

Thanks giving another example wrt to the noxious results of
copyright assigment policy, which undermines goals of GPL.

Why pushing your agenda against copyright assignment into this thread?

I don't think it is irrevelant.

The question is "Can I publish the changes?" and the answer is "Yes".

As for including psgml into GNU ELPA, the answer is "Not until all
authors have sign the FSF copyright assignment".

This is a policy that is particular to GNU Emacs and some other GNU
projects.  It shows respect for potential authors (by not including
their code without their permission) and protects actual authors (by
allowing them to rely on the fact that changes against Emacs code by
signed contributors can be part of Emacs.)

I think there is a more important reason for those copyright
assignments: The FSF considers its projects as so central for free
software that their copyright status has to be beyond any doubt.

For example, there could arise severe damage if some malicious company
(you name it) suddenly claimed that central pieces of GNU software were
contributed (maybe years ago) by some of their employees without
employer's permission.


In which way a CA-paper could avoid that?
What about the opposite danger: a company signs, provides crucial parts and 
withdraws CA?
See current discussions at emacs-devel on a lower scale.

Emacs got a lot of re-write already for pur CA-reasons.
Isn't that spoiled human labor in the light of GPL?

Andreas

Nicolas

[I will read answers to this, but (probably) not respond, because I also
think that this is the wrong newsgroup for this discussion.]







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]