[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [O] AUCTeX key bindings within Org documents

From: Marcin Borkowski
Subject: Re: [O] AUCTeX key bindings within Org documents
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:36:38 +0200

Dnia 2013-09-28, o godz. 12:30:01
Achim Gratz <address@hidden> napisaƂ(a):

> Am 28.09.2013 11:56, schrieb Suvayu Ali:
> > I think "Public Domain" is the most open you can go.
> It isn't, simply because there is no way to put something into the 
> public domain in many jurisdictions and what exactly is meant by
> "public domain" differs by jurisdiction as well.
> >  Otherwise "GPL v2" is always good.
> CC0 probably comes closest to "public domain" for most intents and 
> purposes, although I don't think it has been tested in court as the
> GPL variants have been.  For Emacs, (L)GPL would be more appropriate
> and if integration into Emacs proper is desired, then you actually
> need to assign copyright to the FSF.

BTW: what are exactly the legal consequences of assigning copyright to
the FSF, especially (but not limited to) concerning copyright of future
works?  Is there any document on the web summarizing this?  (I'm asking
because there is at least one person around here who got very
dissatisfied with his FSF copyright assignment, and I'd prefer to know
what the pitfalls might be.)

And for the record: you might consider the LPPL (LaTeX Project Public
Licence), which is more liberal than GPL, but more restrictive than
PD (and need not be restricted to LaTeX-related works).

> Achim.


Marcin Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

reply via email to

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