comparison admin/notes/copyright @ 75865:11e96f2d86c2

*** empty log message ***

75864:dc1c12a29c1c

    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.

The years in the copyright notice should be updated every year (see
file "years" in this directory). The PS versions of refcards etc
should display copyright notices (an exception to the rule about
"generated" files), but these can just display the latest year. The
full list of years should be kept in comments in the source file. If

standard GPL text, on legal advice.)

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.)

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
possible. It's ok if this makes the file incompatible with its
original format, if it can still be used by Emacs), or in a README

mac/src/Emacs.r           # resource 'vers'
src/emacs.c
  - remember to change the latest copyright year in the --version output.
  [Post-release, will automate this like set-version does for version.]

admin/check-doc-strings
  Author is Martin Buchholz, and the program output says it is in the
  public domain.

<top-level>/install-sh
lispintro/install-sh
 - this file is copyright MIT, which is OK. Leave the copyright alone.

etc/edt-user.doc
  - update BOTH notices in this file

etc/letter.pbm.letter.xpm
  - trivial, no notice needed.

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,
SW.tit, TONEPY.tit, ZOZY.tit
  - leave the copyrights alone.

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


REMOVED etc/orgcard.tex, orgcard.ps
  Re-add these files if an assignment is received from Rooke.

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, gnus kill-group, reverse-smile, rot13
 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
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."

For the above files, mail sent from rms to Matthew Norwood
asking what to do (via Eben Moglen), 2007/1/22 ("Copyright years").


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

  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.


This file is part of GNU Emacs.

GNU Emacs is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

75865:11e96f2d86c2

    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.

The years in the copyright notice should be updated every year (see
file "years" in this directory). The PS versions of refcards etc
should display copyright notices (an exception to the rule about
"generated" files), but these can just display the latest year. The
full list of years should be kept in comments in the source file. If

standard GPL text, on legal advice.)

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.). 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
possible. It's ok if this makes the file incompatible with its
original format, if it can still be used by Emacs), or in a README

mac/src/Emacs.r           # resource 'vers'
src/emacs.c
  - 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
  public domain, leave alone.

etc/edt-user.doc
  - update BOTH notices in this file

etc/letter.pbm,letter.xpm
  - trivial, no notice needed.
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00324.html>

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,
SW.tit, TONEPY.tit, ZOZY.tit
  - leave the copyrights alone.

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.


REMOVED etc/orgcard.tex, orgcard.ps
  Re-add these files if an assignment is received from Rooke.

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, gnus, kill-group, reverse-smile, rot13
 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/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".


etc/emacs.csh (+ maybe other files rgm switched to GPL?)
 does rms want the older, simple license for this put back? If so,
 what about emacs.bash?


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."

For the above files, mail sent from rms to Matthew Norwood
asking what to do (via Eben Moglen), 2007/1/22 ("Copyright years").


etc/TUTORIAL*
  switch to GPL, or keep older license?


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

  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.

Is/was there a file that we _do_ have copyright for, from which
src/s/umips.h was originally derived?


This file is part of GNU Emacs.

GNU Emacs is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by