[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: NT icons

From: Chong Yidong
Subject: Re: NT icons
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:10:29 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.93 (gnu/linux)

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> We are going to clean up the copyright situation before making a release.

In that case, what is the situation for the remaining items?  Can any
of the following items be moved into the "resolved" section of
admin/notes/copyright?  How long will this take?

etc/gnus-logo.eps, gnus-booklet.ps, gnus-refcard.ps
 just to be safe, papers are on the way for the "Gnus logo", even
 though it is very similar to the already-assigned "Emacs logo".

  does rms want simple license restored for this?

etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one

etc/TUTORIAL* (translations)
  switch to GPL (see english TUTORIAL)
  rms: "We can leave the TUTORIAL translations alone until their
  maintainers update them."

lib-src/etags.c - no 'k.* arnold' in copyright.list'
 rms: "That is ok, in principle. I used free code released by Ken
 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:

  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.

 "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?

  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?

 - 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."

reply via email to

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