[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Licence of ts-comint

From: Jean-Christophe Helary
Subject: Re: Licence of ts-comint
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:15:41 +0200


Thank you very much for the reply.

I must apologize for the hassle because the script that automatically checked for GPL2+ (or other equivalent wordings) did not catch "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along" and I did not take the time to actually check for myself.

Thank you very much for your work, and for making the effort to use a license that makes your package compatible with Emacs.



On Aug 13, 2017, at 12:58, Jostein Kjønigsen <address@hidden> wrote:

Hey Jean.

Thanks for the email.

I'll be frank and admit I don't really care that much about licensing as long as software I use is open-source. That applies to stuff I write and maintain myself.

(Prepare for a slight rant)

With that said, I'm a bit put off by how much effort the FSF/GNU puts into copyright and licensing of code, as opposed ... the code itself.

The whole GCC AST thing and debate about the "freeness" of the AST lead to LLVM being made. For similar reasons, Emacs and GUD has for a long time not supported a Elf-3 capable debugger, because before GDB got that capability that would mean supporting LLDB, which would be "bad" (it not being GPL-licensed and all).

I've seen this quote on some forum online: "The FSF was formed to replace proprietary software with free software. Having succeeded, it now lives on to replace free software with free software".

It's obviously meant as a joke, but I hope you can see where that joke is coming from. Is this really where your effort is best spent?

And now this... I honestly find the churn the FSF is putting on its GPL licenses quite baffling.

If the GPL v1 was good enough for free software... Why on earth should the FSF develop and deploy a new license which renders all former GPLed code "incompatible" (as you put it)? I'm lost for words. Are there really anyone besides Richard M. Stallmann who condones this move?

If you now make the GPL-license incompatible not only with BSD or MIT-type licenses, but also the GPL license itself... Prepare to be even further berated next time the GPL vs BSD-license is up for debate in online forums. Why put so much effort into making license compliance so hard?

From the outside looking in, it looks like needlessly inconveniencing the very people who made stuff for your platform.

You're obviously free to do whatever you please, but to me this just seems a misguided. If your goal is to  promote free software, how do you see this helping?

(End of rant)

That said... My small and pretty insignificant package is already licensed "GPL 2 or whatever newer comes along".

If you still think this is "incompatible" and needs an upgrade, and if you are willing to do the leg-work... You know where my repo is. Feel free to issue a pull-request and I'll have it merged.

Yours truly
Jostein Kjønigsen

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:

In a thread in the emacs-devel maillist, the licensing situation for
packages provided through Emacs package archives has been under focus. I
volunteered to contact the authors of packages that have a license that
incompatible with Emacs, which is now under GPL-3+.

So I wonder if you could consider to change the license of your package

Also, you may have noticed that the package from which ts-comint is
forked has recently moved to GPL3+.


Jean-Christophe Helary

reply via email to

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