[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Fwd: How do I go about debugging my Elisp code?

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: Fwd: How do I go about debugging my Elisp code?
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:20:39 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/2.1.5+104 (cd3a5c8) (2022-01-09)

* Tassilo Horn <> [2022-01-14 18:06]:
> Jean Louis <> writes:
> > * Davin Pearson <> [2022-01-13 04:27]:
> >>
> >
> > After the first review of that file, I can see "Copyright" related to
> > your name. However, that makes the software proprietary.
> Nonsense.

Maybe there is something you did not understand, or I have expressed
myself unsufficiently. That is why you call it "nonsense". When person
does not provide a license reference in any kind of software,
including in Emacs configuration files (which is software), but says
that it is copyrighted, in absence of the free license that software
is proprietary. Do you understand it?

> It is perfectly fine to have individual authors and contributors as
> copyright holders.

That is because I have not expressed myself sufficiently. It really
does not matter who is copyright holder.  What matters is that there
is no compatible free software license in the software. That is what I
forgot to mention.

> Only if a package wants to become part of emacs (GNU ELPA), one has
> to assign the copyright to the FSF.

I did not refer to assigning copyrights to FSF. I have referred to how
package should look like in relation to legality. Who has copyrights
is there not relevant. What is relevant, and what I missed to describe
enough is the absence of compatible license reference.

I am assuming that author wanted to provide such reference and that
his m4 macros are not finished.

> But it would still be fine for NonGNU ELPA if it had a proper
> license statement (which is the actual missing part).

Licensing requirements are not related to ELPA or NonGNU ELPA or any
repository. They are generally related to the license under which
Emacs is issued, so license has to be compatible. It is not relevant
how is software published.

> However, that file is basically a demo for debugging by adding a printed
> message after each line with no intention of becoming part of emacs, so
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

That is incorrect. Software modifies Emacs, thus has to be compatible
to same free software license under which Emacs is issues.

The same is valid for all other software that is modifying Emacs.

In other words, when somebody creates a function for Emacs it is
software modifying Emacs and shall be under compatible software
license. Like GNU GPL v3+


Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:

In support of Richard M. Stallman

reply via email to

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