comparison admin/notes/copyright @ 76194:dd46f744496b

*** empty log message ***

76193:80c354711780

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

leim/SKK-DIC/SKK-JISYO.L
ja-dic/ja-dic.el
  (the latter is auto-generated from the former). Leave the copyright alone.

lib-src/etags.c
  - this has a copyright Ken Arnold. We are still deciding what should
  be done here (see below).

lib-src/getopt1.c, getopt_int.h
  - these are from the GNU C library. Leave the copyrights alone.

lisp/play/tetris.el

  - leave the copyright alone in this imported file.

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
  msdos/README file for the legal history of these files.

src/gmalloc.c
  - contains numerous copyrights from the GNU C library. Leave them alone.

src/acldef.h, chpdef.h, ndir.h

*** 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).

*** 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".

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html
  Only a few sentences around the license notice need changing from
  previous version.
Done: TUTORIAL.eo

[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?

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?


[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."


This file is part of GNU Emacs.

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

76194:dd46f744496b

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.

4. Please don't just add an FSF copyright without checking that is the
right thing to do.


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

leim/SKK-DIC/SKK-JISYO.L
ja-dic/ja-dic.el
  (the latter is auto-generated from the former). Leave the copyright alone.

lib-src/etags.c
  Copyright information is duplicated in etc/ETAGS.README. Update that
  file too.

  Until 2007 etags.c was described as being copyright FSF and Ken Arnold.
  After some investigation in Feb 2007, then to the best of our
  knowledge we believe that the original 1984 Emacs version was based
  on the version in BSD4.2. See for example this 1985 post from Ken Arnold:
  <http://groups.google.com/group/mod.sources/browse_thread/thread/ffe5c55845a640a9>
    I have received enough requests for the current source to ctags
    to post it. Here is the latest version (what will go out with
    4.3, modulo any bugs fixed during the beta period). It is the
    4.2 ctags with recognition of yacc and lex tags added.

  See also a 1984 version of ctags (no copyright) posted to net.sources:
  <http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d>
  Version of etags.c in emacs-16.56 duplicates comment typos.

  Accordingly, in Feb 2007 we added a 1984 copyright for the
  University of California and a revised BSD license. The terms of
  this require that the full license details be available in binary
  distributions - hence the file etc/ETAGS.README.

lib-src/getopt1.c, getopt_int.h
  - these are from the GNU C library. Leave the copyrights alone.

lisp/play/tetris.el

  - leave the copyright alone in this imported file.

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."

FSF copyrights should only appear in files which have undergone
non-trivial cumulative changes from the original versions in the Lucid
Widget Library. NB this means that if you make non-trivial changes to
a file with no FSF copyright, you should add one. Also, if changes are
reverted to the extent that a file becomes basically the same as the
original version, the FSF copyright should be removed.

In my (rgm) opinion, as of Feb 2007, all the non-trivial files differ
significantly from the original versions, with the exception of
lwlib-Xm.h. Most of the changes that were made to this file have
subsequently been reverted. Therefore I removed the FSF copyright from
this file (which is arguably too trivial to merit a notice anyway). I
added FSF copyright to the following files which did not have them
already: Makefile.in, lwlib-Xaw.c, lwlib-int.h (borderline),
lwlib-utils.c (borderline), lwlib.c, lwlib.h.

Copyright years before the advent of public CVS in 2001 were those
when I judged (from the CVS logs) that non-trivial amounts of change
had taken place. I also adjusted the existing FSF years in xlwmenu.c,
xlwmenu.h, and xlwmenuP.h on the same basis.

Note that until Feb 2007, the following files in lwlib were lacking
notices: lwlib-int.h, lwlib.h, lwlib-Xaw.h, lwlib-Xlw.h, lwlib-utils.h

The following files did not list a Lucid copyright: xlwmenu.h,
xlwmenuP.h.

To the best of our knowledge, all the code files in lwlib were
originally part of the Lucid Widget Library, even if they did not say
so explicitly. For example, they were all present in Lucid Emacs 19.1
in 1992. The exceptions are the two Xaw files, which did not appear
till Lucid Emacs 19.9 in 1994. The file lwlib-Xaw.h is too trivial to
merit a copyright notice, but would presumably have the same one as
lwlib-Xaw.c. We have been unable to find a true standalone version of
LWL, if there was such a thing, to check definitively.

To clarify the situation, in Feb 2007 we added Lucid copyrights and
GPL notices to those files lacking either that were non-trivial,
namely: lwlib-int.h, lwlib.h, xlwmenu.h, xlwmenuP.h. This represents
our best understanding of the legal status of these files. We also
clarified the notices in Makefile.in, which was originally the
Makefile auto-generated from Lucid's Imakefile.

As of Feb 2007, the following files are considered too trivial for
notices: lwlib-Xaw.h, lwlib-Xlw.h, lwlib-utils.h.


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
  msdos/README file for the legal history of these files.


oldXMenu/
  Keep the "copyright.h" method used by X11, rather than moving the
  licenses into the files. Note that the original X10.h did not use
  copyright.h, but had an explicit notice, which we retain.

If you make non-trivial changes to a file which does not have an FSF
notice, add one and a GPL notice (as per Activate.c). If changes to a
file are reverted such that it becomes essentially the same as the
original X11 version, remove the FSF notice and GPL.

Only the files which differ significantly from the original X11
versions should have FSF copyright and GPL notices. At time of writing
(Feb 2007), this is: Activate.c, Create.c, Internal.c. I (rgm)
established this by diff'ing the current files against those in X11R1,
and when I found significant differences looking in the ChangeLog for
the years they originated (the CVS logs are truncated before 1999). I
therefore removed the FSF notices (added in 200x) from the other
files. There are some borderline cases IMO: AddSel.c, InsSel.c,
XMakeAssoc.c, XMenu.h. For these I erred on the side of NOT adding FSF
notices.

With regards to whether the files we have changed should have GPL
added or not, rms says (2007-02-25, "oldXmenu issues"):

    It does not make much difference, because oldXmenu is obsolete
    except for use in Emacs (and it is not normally used in Emacs any
    more either).

    So, to make things simple, please put our changes under the GPL.

insque.c had no copyright notice until 2005. The version of insque.c
added to Emacs 1992-01-27 is essentially the same as insremque.c added
to glic three days later by Roland McGrath, with an FSF copyright and
GPL, but no ChangeLog entry:
<http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/libc/misc/insremque.c?\
rev=1.1&cvsroot=glibc>
To the best of his recollection, McGrath (who has a copyright
assignment) was the author of this file (email from roland at frob.com
to rms, 2007-02-23, "Where did insque.c come from?"). The FSF
copyright and GPL in this file are therefore correct as far as we
understand it.

Imakefile had no legal info in Feb 2007, but was obviously based on
the X11 version (which also had no explicit legal info). As it was
unused, I removed it. It would have the same MIT copyright as
Makefile.in does now.


src/gmalloc.c
  - contains numerous copyrights from the GNU C library. Leave them alone.

src/acldef.h, chpdef.h, ndir.h

*** 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):

Maybe some relevant comments here?
<http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_thread/thread/123547ea95437a1f>


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).

*** 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.


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".

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html
  Only a few sentences around the license notice need changing from
  previous version.
Done: TUTORIAL.eo



This file is part of GNU Emacs.

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