emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)


From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:49:53 +0900

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
 > > Cc: Jambunathan K <address@hidden>,
 > >     address@hidden
 > > Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 03:27:45 +0900
 > > 
 > > Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > > 
 > >  > > Again, which of the 4 freedoms and what is the restriction
 > >  > > that you are talking about.
 > >  > 
 > >  > All of them.  I already said why, go and re-read if you still don't
 > >  > understand.
 > > 
 > > No, Eli, it's you that don't understand.  Software is free software if
 > > and only if it is distributed under a free software license, by the
 > > definition of "free software license".[1]  Jambunathan's code is
 > > distributed under the GPL, and that is that.
 > 
 > You should read his messages more closely.

His messages are a red herring.  To determine whether the software is
free, all one needs to read is -- the license.

There are many reasons why a given project doesn't use code that is
free.  The code might be under a free but incompatible license, and
the project is unwilling to switch licenses.  The code might be
redundant.

In Emacs, there are *self-imposed* non-technical restrictions on
adding software over and above software freedom.  But those are not
restrictions on freedom, even if a developer chooses to aim at them to
confound Emacs, *because* they are self-imposed.

That doesn't make Jambunathan's behavior nice, and I generally agree
with your criticism of Jambunathan's means to his ends, including the
conclusion that they may harm the growth of software freedom in the
end.  But lack of software freedom of the software itself as
distributed is not a justification for that criticism.




reply via email to

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