From: Glenn Morris Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:13:55 +0000 (+0000) Subject: *** empty log message *** X-Git-Tag: emacs-pretest-22.0.94~77 X-Git-Url: http://git.eshelyaron.com/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=d502a3da245b6351865ee4edff4b0150cdf0835c;p=emacs.git *** empty log message *** --- diff --git a/admin/notes/copyright b/admin/notes/copyright index eaebb6c2bc0..90527e1e62a 100644 --- a/admin/notes/copyright +++ b/admin/notes/copyright @@ -40,38 +40,14 @@ a file is auto-generated (eg ldefs-boot.el) from another one in the CVS, then it does not really matter about adding a copyright statement to the generated file. -However, here is a quote from Matt Norwood (Software Freedom Law -Center) that suggests we should revise the above policy about trivial -files: - - If FSF has a strong policy reason notices off of files it - considers "trivial", this will take a lot more bookkeeping; it - also runs the risk of these "trivial" files later growing into - non-trivial files, and being in the tree without any record of - authorship. All in all, I think it's a better policy to attach the - notice and let future authors decide if something is trivial when - they want to reuse it elsewhere. - [...] - In general, copyright law will step back and look at the overall "work" - consisting of all the assembled components working together as a system; - it will apply protection and permissions to this system, not to its - subcomponents. If parts of it are recombined into another system, it - will consider the protections and permissions for each of the source - components only in order to assess the overall status of the work again. - The assessment of whether a set of components is entitled to copyright - protection is the degree to which they display "creativity": not as - atomic units, but as parts of a system working in concert. Thus, several - "trivial" components working together in some coherent system might be - protectible. - -RMS feels, though, that in trivial files (eg etc/FTP), having a -license notice looks odd. Matt Norwood has confirmed it is not -_necessary_ to have licenses in such files, so we are sticking with -the policy of no licenses in "trivial" files. - -NB consequently, if you add a lot of text to a small file, consider -whether your changes have made the file worthy of a copyright notice, -and if so, please add one. +Legal advice says that we could, if we wished, put a license notice +even in trivial files, because copyright law in general looks at the +overall work as a whole. It is not _necessary_ to do so, and rms +prefers that we do not. This means one needs to take care that trivial +files do not grow and become non-trivial without having a license +added. NB consequently, if you add a lot of text to a small file, +consider whether your changes have made the file worthy of a copyright +notice, and if so, please add one. The years in the copyright notice should be updated every year (see file "years" in this directory). The PS versions of refcards etc @@ -155,6 +131,9 @@ src/m/news-r6.h etc/edt-user.doc - update BOTH notices in this file +etc/emacs.csh + - keep simple license for this simple file + etc/letter.pbm,letter.xpm - trivial, no notice needed. @@ -331,6 +310,11 @@ sol2-3.h aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, netbsd.h, sunos4-0.h started trivial, grown in tiny changes. +netbsd.h: +Roland McGrath said to rms (2007/02/17): "I don't really remember +anything about it. If I put it in without other comment, then probably +I wrote it myself." + Someone might want to tweak the copyright years (for dates before 2001) that I used in all these files. @@ -396,10 +380,6 @@ etc/gnus-logo.eps, gnus-booklet.ps, gnus-refcard.ps though it is very similar to the already-assigned "Emacs logo". -etc/emacs.csh - does rms want simple license restored for this? - - etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one @@ -409,17 +389,16 @@ etc/TUTORIAL* (translations) maintainers update them." -lib-src/etags.c - no 'k.* arnold' in copyright.list' - rms: "That is ok, in principle. I used free code released by Ken - Arnold as the starting point. However, it may be that we need to get - and insert whatever his license was for his code." - - under GPL, so OK? - - - 1984 version of ctags, with no copyright, posted to net.sources: - http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d +[waiting for legal advice] +lib-src/etags.c + - was it ok to use Ken Arnold's code as a basis? + 1984 version of ctags, with no copyright, posted to net.sources: + http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d) + version of etags.c in emacs-16.56 seems to be derived from this + (duplicate typos in comments). +[waiting for legal advice on lwlib/*] lwlib/lwlib-Xaw.c copyright Chuck Thompson; but under GPL, so OK? @@ -452,6 +431,7 @@ lwlib/* changes to since 1992? +[waiting for legal advice] oldXMenu/ - should there be any FSF copyrights at all in here? Some were added in 2005, without licence notices. Was this right? @@ -468,6 +448,7 @@ Should we add a FSF copyright or not? Can we add such a notice as soon as we check it check it in to CVS? +[waiting for legal advice] oldXMenu/Makefile.in, Makefile, Imakefile, descrip.mms, insque.c - issues described in mail to rms, 2006/12/17. rms: "I have asked for lawyer's advice about these."