|
From: | Andreas Röhler |
Subject: | Re: Basic legal question: Publication of a fix to psgml |
Date: | Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:49:31 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 |
Am 31.03.2013 20:57, schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:57:25 +0200 From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> please consider the case at stake: a great library like psgml.el, which delivered solutions hardly found elsewhere, was kept nearly unknown for more than a decade. Don't you accept there is a difference between not bundling code and not mentioning it? Not to say: discourage it's use. If you might consider the effect already visible in this thread, you will remark the notion of the explicit consentement of authors for a change or republishing as so called matter of respect. Don't you see the danger which raises for all free software from there? All legal tracts and stances are interpreted in the light of habit. If a court notices the habit of requesting personal consentements for otherwise GPLed code changes as a need, the story of free software might be over.It doesn't matter what I think on this matter. I'm saying that attacking the FSF on one of the technical GNU forums is rude and unethical.
When pointing at some probably wrong decision, there is no attack at the FSF. IMO FSF does a great job with its anti-DRM and many other campaigns. As IPython got the FSF Free Software Award some days ago: Does the IPython-project require copyright assigments? Never heard from. So that policy seems not so closely linked to FSF as you assume. It's just a decision effecting Emacs development and usage.
There are specialized forums for this kind of discussions, please take this subject there.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |