comparison admin/notes/copyright @ 75946:6cbb395e88b0

*** empty log message ***

75945:b3ac3a951e95

    Odds are that I did, but I'm not certain.

  Accordingly, FSF copyright was added.


*** 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/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.


src/acldef.h, chpdef.h, ndir.h
  On legal advice from Matt Norwood, the following comment was added
  to these files in Feb 2007:

  upcoming Emacs-22 release. Post-release, we can revisit this issue
  and possibly add a list of all authors who have changed these files.
  (details in email from Matt Norwood to rms, 2007/02/03).


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>


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
  does rms want simple license restored for this?


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."


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


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?

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.

lwlib/Makefile.in
 "some parts" copyright Lucid, no license

lwlib/lwlib-utils.c, lwlib.c
  copyright Lucid, Inc; but under GPL, so OK?

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?


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?


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/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 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:

Matt Norwood:
    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.

Details:

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.

aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, netbsd.h, sunos4-0.h
  started trivial, grown in tiny changes.



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

75946:6cbb395e88b0

    Odds are that I did, but I'm not certain.

  Accordingly, FSF copyright was added.


** Issues that are "fixed" for the release of Emacs 22, but we may
   wish to revisit later in more detail


src/acldef.h, chpdef.h, ndir.h
  On legal advice from Matt Norwood, the following comment was added
  to these files in Feb 2007:

  upcoming Emacs-22 release. Post-release, we can revisit this issue
  and possibly add a list of all authors who have changed these files.
  (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.

aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, netbsd.h, sunos4-0.h
  started trivial, grown in tiny changes.


*** 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/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>


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
  does rms want simple license restored for this?


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.eo
 - remove non-FSF copyright, merge years into FSF, add 2007.


etc/TUTORIAL* (translations)
  switch to GPL (see english TUTORIAL)
  rms: "We can leave the TUTORIAL translations alone until their
  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


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?

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.

lwlib/Makefile.in
 "some parts" copyright Lucid, no license

lwlib/lwlib-utils.c, lwlib.c
  copyright Lucid, Inc; but under GPL, so OK?

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?


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?


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/m, src/s
  - any more non-trivial files that should have copyright added? If
  so, note the names above.



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