comparison admin/notes/copyright @ 75911:b938ba007a89

*** empty log message ***

75910:aa3016350f98

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

<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

  hp800 arch.
  NB we would like to re-add this file if we can. Please let us know
  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):

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.

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

etc/BABYL
RMS: "The lawyer said we can keep BABYL."


*** These are copyright issues still to be addressed:


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.
  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".


etc/emacs.csh (+ maybe etc/DISTRIB?)
 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
 and insert whatever his license was for his code."

 - 1984 version of ctags, with no copyright, posted to net.sources:
   http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d


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."


oldXMenu/
 - should there be any FSF copyrights at all in here? Some were added
   in 2005, without licence notices. Was this right?
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, 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.


This file is part of GNU Emacs.

GNU Emacs is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify

75911:b938ba007a89

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.

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
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

<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
  - 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

  hp800 arch.
  NB we would like to re-add this file if we can. Please let us know
  if you can clarify its legal status.


** Some notes on resolved issues, for historical information only


*** 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):

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."


etc/images/icons/*
nt/icons/emacs21.ico
src/gnu.h
  Has Andrew Zhilin's 2005-11 assignment been correctly noted in
  copyright.list? Mail sent to fsf-records.
  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-11/msg00349.html


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 non-trivial README (and other such files) need copyright and
license statements. Use GPL in most cases, rather than the short
notices we have been using till now. NB but see above for some
exceptions in etc/ that should stay unchanged.
rms: "If a README file is under 60 lines long, using the long version
[of the GPL notice] might be ugly. Please tell me if you encounter one
that is under 60 lines."

  lisp/term/README (ChangeLog.3 suggests was written by Eric Raymond)
  borderline "trivial" cases


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, emacs.bash, DISTRIB
  does rms want GPL or simple license for these?


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*
  switch to GPL


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.

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.



This file is part of GNU Emacs.

GNU Emacs is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify