longer, eg the text "GNU Emacs is free software...".
+Summary for the impatient:
+
+1. Don't add a file to Emacs written by someone other than yourself
+without thinking about the legal aspect (make sure they have an
+assignment, adjust the copyright statements in the file). NB the
+ChangeLog entry should be in the name of the author of the code, not
+the person who installs it.
+
+2. With images, add the legal info to a README file in the directory
+containing the image.
+
+3. If you add a lot of text to a previously trivial file that had no
+legal notices, consider if you should add a copyright statement.
+
+
Every non-trivial file distributed through the Emacs CVS should be
self-explanatory in terms of copyright and license. This includes
files that are not distributed in Emacs releases (for example, 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.
+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
All README (and other such text files) that are non-trivial should
contain copyright statements and GPL license notices, exactly as .el
-files do (see e.g. README in the top-level directory). (Before 2007,
+files do (see e.g. README in the top-level directory). Before 2007,
we used a simple, short statement permitting copying and modification
provided legal notices were retained. In Feb 2007 we switched to the
-standard GPL text, on legal advice.)
+standard GPL text, on legal advice. Some older text files in etc/
+should, however, keep their current licenses (see below for list).
For image files, the copyright and license details should be recorded
in a README file in each directory with images. (Legal advice says
that we need not add notices to each image file individually, if they
-allow for that.)
+allow for that.). It is recommended to use the word "convert" to
+describe the automatic process of changing an image from one format to
+another (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00618.html).
+
When installing a file with an "unusual" license (after checking first
it is ok), put a copy of the copyright and license in the file (if
- remember to change the latest copyright year in the --version output.
[Post-release, will automate this like set-version does for version.]
-
<top-level>/install-sh
lispintro/install-sh
- this file is copyright MIT, which is OK. Leave the copyright alone.
+admin/check-doc-strings
+src/m/news-r6.h
+ public domain, leave alone.
+
etc/edt-user.doc
- update BOTH notices in this file
-etc/letter.pbm.letter.xpm
+etc/emacs.csh
+ - keep simple license for this simple file
+
+etc/letter.pbm,letter.xpm
- trivial, no notice needed.
+<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00324.html>
+
+etc/FTP, ORDERS
+ - trivial (at time of writing), no license needed
+
+etc/GNU, INTERVIEW, LINUX-GNU, MOTIVATION, SERVICE, THE-GNU-PROJECT,
+WHY-FREE
+ rms: "These are statements of opinion or testimony. Their licenses
+ should permit verbatim copying only. Please don't change the
+ licenses that they have. They are distributed with Emacs but they
+ are not part of Emacs."
+
+etc/MAILINGLISTS
+ rms: simple license is fine for this file
leim/CXTERM-DIC/4Corner.tit, ARRAY30.tit, CCDOSPY.tit, ECDICT.tit,
ETZY.tit, PY-b5.tit, Punct-b5.tit, Punct.tit, QJ-b5.tit, QJ.tit,
lisp/net/tramp.el
- there are also copyrights in the body of the file. Update these too.
+lwlib/
+rms (2007/02/17): "lwlib is not assigned to the FSF; we don't consider
+it part of Emacs. [...] Therefore non-FSF copyrights are ok in lwlib."
+
msdos/is_exec.c, sigaction.c
- these files are copyright DJ Delorie. Leave the copyrights alone.
Leave the Eli Zaretskii copyright in is_exec.c alone. See the
if you can clarify its legal status.
-*** These are copyright issues that need not be fixed until after
- Emacs 22 is released (though if they can be fixed before, that is
- obviously good):
+** Some notes on resolved issues, for historical information only
+lisp/term/README
+ - had no copyright notice till Feb 2007. ChangeLog.3 suggests it was
+ written by Eric Raymond. When asked by rms on 14 Feb 2007 he said:
-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
-CVS, if suitable options are applied. (This CVS issue obviously does
-not affect a release).
- rms: will ask lawyer
+ I don't remember writing it, but it reads like my prose and I believe
+ I wrote the feature(s) it's describing. So I would have been the
+ likeliest person to write it.
+ Odds are that I did, but I'm not certain.
-REMOVED etc/orgcard.tex, orgcard.ps
- Re-add these files if an assignment is received from Rooke.
+ Accordingly, FSF copyright was added.
-etc/images
- Image files from GTK, Gnome are under GPLv2 (no "or later"?). RMS will
- contact image authors in regards to future switch to v3.
+
+** Issues that are "fixed" for the release of Emacs 22, but we may
+ wish to revisit later in more detail
+etc/e/eterm-color.ti
src/acldef.h, chpdef.h, ndir.h
On legal advice from Matt Norwood, the following comment was added
to these files in Feb 2007:
(details in email from Matt Norwood to rms, 2007/02/03).
+src/m/mips4.h, news-risc.h, pmax.h
+src/s/aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, irix4-0.h, irix5-0.h,
+isc2-2.h, netbsd.h, osf1.h, sol2-3.h, sunos4-0.h, usg5-4-2.h
+ - all these (not obviously trivial) files were missing copyrights
+ till Feb 2007, when FSF copyright was added. Matt Norwood advised:
+
+ For now, I think the best policy is to assume that we do have
+ assignments from the authors (I recall many of these header files
+ as having been originally written by rms), and to attach an FSF
+ copyright with GPL notice. We can amend this if and when we
+ complete the code audit. Any additions to these files by
+ non-assigned authors are arguably "de minimis" contributions to
+ Emacs: small changes or suggestions to a work that are subsumed in
+ the main authors' copyright in the entire work.
+
+Here is my (rgm) take on the details of the above files:
+
+mips4.h
+ might be trivial? started trivial, been added to in tiny changes by
+ those with FSF assignment, often result of email suggestions by others.
+
+news-risc.h
+ started trivial. Grown by tiny additions, plus chunk
+ from mips.h, which was and is Copyright FSF
+
+pmax.h
+ started trivial. grown in tiny changes, except for maybe Jim Wilson's
+ comment.
+
+? irix4-0.h
+ I would say started non-trivial (1992, rms). only tiny changes since
+ installed.
+
+? irix5-0.h
+ I would say started non-trivial (1993, jimb, heavily based
+ on irix4-0.h). A few borderline non-tiny changes since.
+
+? isc2-2.h
+ started trivial. 2 non-tiny change, in 1993. looks to
+ be made up of several small tweaks from various sources. maybe
+ non-tiny total changes from Karl Berry (no emacs assignment).
+
+osf1.h
+ started trivial. grown in tiny changes (one borderline tiny change
+ by fx in 2000, but most code was later removed). non-tiny addition
+ in 2002 from m/alpha.h, but that was and is copyright FSF.
+
+usg5-4-2.h
+ started non-trivial, but was heavily based on usg5-4.h, which was and is
+ copyright FSF. only tiny changes since installed.
+
+sol2-3.h
+ started trivial. only non-tiny change (1994) incorporated code from
+ usg5-4.h, which was and is copyright FSF.
+
+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.
+
+Note: erring on the side of caution, I also added notices to some
+files I thought might be considered non-trivial (if one includes
+comment) in s/:
+ aix4-1.h hiuxmpp.h hiuxwe2.h hpux10.h irix6-0.h irix6-5.h isc3-0.h
+ ptx4.h sol2.h sunos4-0.h
+
+(everything with > 30 non-blank lines, which at least is _some_ kind of
+system)
+
+
+*** These are copyright issues that need not be fixed until after
+ Emacs 22 is released (though if they can be fixed before, that is
+ obviously good):
+
+
+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
+CVS, if suitable options are applied. (This CVS issue obviously does
+not affect a release).
+ rms: will ask lawyer
+
+
+Make sure that all files with non-standard copyrights or licenses are
+noted in this file.
+
+
+etc/BABYL
+ File says it was written in 1983 by Eugene Ciccarelli, who has no
+ assignment. RMS: "The lawyer said we can keep BABYL."
+
+
+REMOVED etc/gnu.xpm, nt/icons/emacs21.ico, nt/icons/sink.ico
+ - Restore if find legal info. emacs21.ico is not due to Davenport.
+ Asked Voelker, no answer yet.
+
+REMOVED etc/orgcard.tex, orgcard.ps
+ Re-add these files if an assignment is received from Rooke.
+
+
+etc/images
+ Image files from GTK, Gnome are under GPLv2 (no "or later"?). RMS will
+ contact image authors in regards to future switch to v3.
+
+
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:
+NB apart from switching the TUTORIALs to GPL, I think there is nothing
+here that anyone can work on without further input from rms.
+
Maybe some relevant comments here?
<http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_thread/thread/123547ea95437a1f>
-All README (and other such files) that are non-trivial and were added
-by Emacs developers need copyright statements and copying permissions.
- missed any?
- etc/BABYL?
- lisp/term/README?
- borderline "trivial" cases (see below)...?
-These should use the standard GPL text (same as .el files), rather
-than the short notices we have been using till now.
-rms: "If a README file is under 60 lines long, using the long version
-might be ugly. Please tell me if you encounter one that is under 60
-lines."
+etc/gnus-logo.eps, gnus-booklet.ps, gnus-refcard.ps
+ just to be safe, papers are on the way for the "Gnus logo", even
+ though it is very similar to the already-assigned "Emacs logo".
-Clarify the legal status of image files. It's not necessary to put a
-notice in each image (where the format allows it). It's OK to put the
-information in a README file in the associated directory. Files can be
-listed in groups. See etc/README for an example.
-Image files to consider:
- etc/images/gnus/bar, dead, gnntg, gnus-pointer, gnus, important,
- kill-group, reverse-smile, rot13, unimportant
- etc/images/smilies/
-rms: "Can you find this by searching for items in copyright.list that
-assign images for Emacs?" [this suggests we ask Bill Wohler]
+etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one
-admin/check-doc-strings
- Author is Martin Buchholz, but no assignment from him on file, and
- rms has no way to reach him.
-etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one
-etc/e/eterm-color.ti - no copyright
- rms: "I think that is not copyrightable under the merger doctrine
- because the entries are all forced. At least that is the case in the
- US; I am not sure whether we can rely on that in general."
+etc/TUTORIAL* (translations)
+ switch to GPL (see english TUTORIAL)
+ rms: "We can leave the TUTORIAL translations alone until their
+ maintainers update them."
+ Can adapt short license text from end of GPL translations at:
+ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html
+ Only a few sentences around the license notice need changing from
+ previous version.
+Done: TUTORIAL.eo
-For the above files, mail sent from rms to Matthew Norwood
-asking what to do (via Eben Moglen), 2007/1/22 ("Copyright years").
+[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?
+lwlib/lwlib-Xlw.c, lwlib-Xm.c, lwlib-Xm.h, xlwmenu.c
+ copyright lucid and FSF, but under GPL, so OK?
+ FSF copyrights were added in 200x, was that right?
-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."
+lwlib/lwlib-int.h, lwlib.h, lwlib-Xaw.h, lwlib-Xlw.h, lwlib-utils.h
+ no copyright. last three trivial?
+ suspect these must have been part of the "Lucid Widget Library",
+ which is under GPL. Can't find an original version of this to check.
- - 1984 version of ctags, with no copyright, posted to net.sources:
- http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d
+lwlib/Makefile.in
+ "some parts" copyright Lucid, no license
+lwlib/lwlib-utils.c, lwlib.c
+ copyright Lucid, Inc; but under GPL, so OK?
-lwlib/lwlib-int.h, lwlib.h - no copyright
-lwlib/Makefile.in, lwlib-utils.c, lwlib.c - copyright Lucid
-lwlib/lwlib-Xaw.c - copyright Chuck Thompson
-lwlib/lwlib.c - copyright Lucid, but FSF copyright was added in 2002 -
- was that correct?
- rms: "I asked Matthew Norwood about these, I believe."
+lwlib/xlwmenu.h, xlwmenuP.h
+ part of 'Lucid Widget Library', but only FSF copyright (when files
+ were first checked into RCS, there were no copyrights). Was it right
+ to add FSF copyright?
+ should we add a 1992 Lucid copyright?
+lwlib/*
+ should we:
+ 1) ensure all files that were originally in the "Lucid Widget
+ Library" have 1992 Lucid copyright?
+ 2) add or remove FSF copyrights to any files we have made non-trivial
+ 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?
+ Eg don't think copyright.h should have FSF copyright!
+ Should add copyright details for X11R1 to the README file. (see
+ copyright.h). I suggest we remove copyright.h and add the notices
+ directly into the files.
+
+
+The general issue is, as with some of the Lucid code in lwlib, suppose
+file foo.c is Copyright (C) 2000 John Smith, and released under the
+GPL. We check it into Emacs CVS and make non-trivial changes to it.
+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."
-
-src/gnu.h
-src/m/mips4.h, news-r6.h, news-risc.h, pmax.h
-src/s/aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, irix4-0.h, irix5-0.h,
-isc2-2.h, netbsd.h, osf1.h, sol2-3.h, sunos4-0.h, umips.h, usg5-4-2.h
- - all these (not obviously trivial) files are missing copyrights.
- rms: "I should talk about these with Matthew Norwood."
-The current legal advice seems to be that we should attach FSF
-copyright and GPL for the time being, then review post-release. But it
-is still under discussion.
-
\f
This file is part of GNU Emacs.
HCoop / bpt / emacs.git / blobdiff