[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Help building Pen.el (GPT for emacs)

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: Help building Pen.el (GPT for emacs)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 19:16:34 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/2.0.7+183 (3d24855) (2021-05-28)

* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-07-24 11:51]:
> Please re-read your postings.  They say otherwise.  I realize that you
> didn't intend that, but that's how your words sound, here and
> elsewhere.  If you want to avoid such interpretation, please take
> great care to tone down your categorical statements, use qualifiers
> like IMO and AFAIK and "I think", and generally make sure your words
> say that's your opinion, not an absolute truth, let alone something
> the GNU project decided to do or is doing.
> > For example when there is recommendation of proprietary software I
> > will say that GNU project does not endorse such.

> Please consider adding "AFAIK" or somesuch, otherwise this sounds like
> you are speaking for the project.

Thanks, but no, all opinions are private. What is official for GNU
project is on the GNU website, in the GNU manuals and other

Though, that is not the subject of this thread.

You have said your opinion though you did not mention not even one
legal reference to the questions about licensing compliance that I
have mentioned. So I keep it as your differing opinion though without
references to legalities I do not find it relevant.

Julia Reda's opinion I find relevant, and I found it online. I wish I
could find it as answer on this mailing list sooner than online, but
it is not so. 

> And yet you draw conclusions from it about how GNU and Emacs should
> behave about this technology?  How does that make sense?

I never said so, that is misunderstanding. Once again, my question
related GPL licensing compliance is relevant to GNU project, and to
GPL licensed software authors.

Licensing is legality. It is not related to technological parts. I
have never mentioned technology and how GNU and Emacs should behave. 

In the thread of Pen.el subject I wanted to find out how is compliance
to licenses solved. Don't make fuss about the simple questions. Maybe
is better to wait and let maybe somebody else jump in and answer it. 

You seem to personally chase me that I stop asking questions? 

It does not really seem welcoming, it seems like I did something bad
to you and you are pushing with force to stop me asking such simple
banal question. 

We talk about GPL licensing compliance for years in various GNU
related discussion within GNU project and without GNU project. I was
asking German companies about licensing compliance to GNU GPL software
and had such a nice conversation with them and they agreed to comply
to it, and provided sources.

You please make it easy, as I am asking logical question, don't call
me radical as that has negative connotations. 

> > Legality of AI generated code and "free use" doctrine in the US is at
> > this point of development yet far from functioning well
> > internationally. 
> Which, to me, says that we should carefully examine this issue by
> ourselves, not draw any premature conclusions from the hoop-la out
> there.

Remember that it was me who first responded to original poster and
installed pen.el and tried to run it, at that time I did not have the
OpenAI key, but now I have it. 

>From that, it should be obvious that I am interested in the

Without even looking online (due to my limited Internet) I have asked
about licensing compliance, there was no answer until I found it today
from online sources. That question is related to adopting the
technology, not to rejecting it.

If you wish to adopt anything into private use one has to have
permissions, or in this case "fair use" exemption granted by US
government. It should be obvious that I have referenced legal
advisors, attorneys who made that document, including Julia Reda,
known as activist in Germany, and it was me who found references and
listed it here.

Beside those really deficient expressions, if you have a constructive
references on how how each jurisdiction would accept "fair use" let me
know, otherwise leave this discussion in peace and myself. 

Stay on subject, don't call me words as me and you didn't graze the
sheep together.


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]