emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages


From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:16:55 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

I wrote

> Under the malign influence of GitHub, developers often don't bother to
> put on a license.

You responded

  > Github actively encourages users to specify the license.

which appears to disagree.  However,there is no conflict between what
you report and what I wrote.  They appear to conflict, but they really
don't conflict.

You report what GitHub says NOW.  That is a change Github made in
response to the failing grade we gave GitHub two years ago in
https://gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html.

The change was an improvement, but it doesn't erase the past.
GitHub operated for many years presenting "no license" as a fine
alternative.

Thus, I stand by what I wrote.  During those years, GitHub spread a
malign influence against putting on a license.  The effects continue
to spread among the users.

Should we forgive GitHub for the past harm?  That depends on how hard
GitHub works now to correct the past harm.

I don't remember the specifics of what GitHub says now -- I saw it
over a year ago.  ISTR it was not a strong and firm policy, and I was
disappointed.  It was less bad, but not very good.  You described it
with the word "encourages", which also suggests it is not strong and
firm.

A weak policy will not suffice, in practice, to undo the past harm.

A strong and firm policy would mean telling all the users: "Warning:
if a source file has no license, you are not authorized to copy it or
redistribute it, let alone change it."  And then saying, "Upload of
software source files not carrying a clear license is not permitted --
don't do it here!"

If GitHub did that, the FSF would welcome its efforts to undo the past
harm, and would no longer blame present-day GitHub for it.  (Our other
criticisms of GitHub, on other issues, would remain active.)

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.




reply via email to

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