the concept.
rms: "My understanding is that game rules as such are not copyrightable."
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-01/msg00960.html>
+ rms: Legal advice is that we are ok and need not worry about this.
lispref/doclicense.texi
man/doclicense.texi
Accordingly, FSF copyright was added.
src/unexhp9k800.c (and dependent src/m/sr2k.h)
+ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00138.html
- briefly removed due to legal uncertainly Jan-Mar 2007. The
relevant assignment is under "hp9k800" in copyright.list. File was
written by John V. Morris at HP, and disclaimed by the author and
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-04/msg01427.html
+lisp/progmodes/python.el
+Dave Love alerted us to a potential legal problem:
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-pretest-bug/2007-04/msg00459.html
+
+On consultation with a lawyer, we found there was no problem:
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-05/msg00466.html
+
+
** Issues that are "fixed" for the release of Emacs 22, but we may
wish to revisit later in more detail
Emacs 22 is released (though if they can be fixed before, that is
obviously good):
-Maybe some relevant comments here?
-<http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_thread/thread/123547ea95437a1f>
-
Is it OK to just `cvs remove' a file for legal reasons, or is
something more drastic needed? A removed file is still available from
Done: TUTORIAL.eo
-REMOVED src/unexhp9k800.c
- - we would like to re-add this file if possible. Please let us know
- if you can clarify its legal status.
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00138.html
-
-
*** These are copyright issues still to be addressed:
-python.el potential legal problem
-http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-pretest-bug/2007-04/msg00459.html
+None known.
\f