RFH: Non-free files in Emacs
Jérôme Marant
Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
(Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
a dedicated package.
In order to avoid repackaging as much as possible once done, we would
like to make sure that any problematic file has been identified
(they are all located in /usr/share/emacs/21.4/etc), so a second
review would be welcome.
The following files have already been identified as offending:
etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Thanks in advance for your help.
--
Jérôme Marant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Florian Weimer
> Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
> (Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
> a dedicated package.
What about the Texinfo documentation? Currently, it's GFDL plus
invariant sections.
Jérôme Marant
Their are part of the "non-free files" but they are well identified,
so they don't need any investigation, unlike etc files.
--
Jérôme Marant
Joe Smith
"Jérôme Marant" <jma...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:1142582384.4...@imp8-g19.free.fr...
>The following files have already been identified as offending:
>etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Following are are nonfree documents found in cygwin's Emacs disto besides
what you mentioned above.
These are probably also in Debian's.
etc/GNU
etc/DISTRIB
Jérôme Marant
> "Jérôme Marant" <jma...@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:1142582384.4...@imp8-g19.free.fr...
>>The following files have already been identified as offending:
>>etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
>
> Following are are nonfree documents found in cygwin's Emacs disto
> besides what you mentioned above.
> These are probably also in Debian's.
>
> etc/GNU
> etc/DISTRIB
Thanks!
--
Jérôme Marant
Josh Triplett
> Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
> (Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
> a dedicated package.
Thank you very much for working on this.
> In order to avoid repackaging as much as possible once done, we would
> like to make sure that any problematic file has been identified
> (they are all located in /usr/share/emacs/21.4/etc), so a second
> review would be welcome.
>
> The following files have already been identified as offending:
> etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
Just to confirm the parameters of this review, are you assuming that any
file not explicitly licensed falls under the GPL of Emacs? Or should we
flag files which have no explicit license? Quite a number of the files
in etc/ have no explicit license.
Also, etc/MOTIVATION contains:
> [reprinted with permission of the author
> from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe]
with no license notice given, and authorization to reprint does not
necessarily include authorization to modify.
- Josh Triplett
Jérôme Marant
> Just to confirm the parameters of this review, are you assuming that any
> file not explicitly licensed falls under the GPL of Emacs? Or should we
> flag files which have no explicit license? Quite a number of the files
> in etc/ have no explicit license.
This is a very good question, I asked myself already. I tend to think
that when no licensing information is given, the COPYING applies.
But since I'm not a licensing specialist, I'd like a confirmation.
> Also, etc/MOTIVATION contains:
>> [reprinted with permission of the author
>> from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe]
> with no license notice given, and authorization to reprint does not
> necessarily include authorization to modify.
I would not be surpised this one really lacks a proper license.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
Nathanael Nerode
If you can't stand to read this all, the brief summary:
* As well as the ones you spotted before,
DISTRIB, GNU, MOTIVATION, and gfdl.1 are non-free.
* There are a lot of files without any copyright or licensing information,
and upstream probably will want to fix this. I would remove a lot of these
even if they turn out to be free, as much of it is useless cruft.
ObLicense: I hereby give permission to forward this message or any part of it
(verbatim) to anyone who you think might find it useful.
-----
First, an oddity:
e/eterm
-- binary included in the source tarball! Debian's general policy is
to rebuild such things.
------
Second, files with explicit license notices which aren't standard
free licenses, apart from the non-free files you already identified
(The ones you already identifed are
CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE).
COPYING
-- Non-free (verbatim only), but we make an exception for it because it's
the license for the program.
DEBUG
-- old GNU documentation license (unique copyleft). Free.
DISTRIB
-- Non-free. No explicit permission to make modified copies (verbatim only).
GNU
-- Non-free. "Modified copies may not be made".
MOTIVATION
-- Non-free. Reprinted with permission, no permission to modify.
OTHER.EMACSES
-- old GNU documentation license (unique copyleft). Free.
TUTORIAL and TUTORIAL.*
-- old GNU documentation license (unique copyleft). Free.
emacstool.1
-- GFDL-licensed without Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts,
or Back-Cover Texts -- so considered acceptable. However, it's
also irrelevant to Debian, since it's suntools-specific, so
remove it, just so you don't have to worry about it any more.
gfdl.1
-- Licensed for distribution, but obviously this is a non-free
document ("changing it is not allowed"). We would make an exception for
it if it were the license for any part of the package. If all the
GFDL documentation is removed, it must be removed too.
termcap.src
-- Mostly unlikely to be copyrightable: it's mostly a
collection of facts. But it does contain some extremely substantial comment
text, which probably *is* covered by copyright, thanks to the Berne
Convention, which you may have figured out I am not at all fond of.
The material in the oldest versions was
BSD-licensed; the material in the most recent version is
fairly explicitly made public domain ("belongs to no one and
everyone"). Unfortunately it's a mishmash of contributions by
lots of people with little care to the legal niceties.
Anyone who contributed to either the 4.4BSD version
or a version with the big "COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER DELUSIONS" hunk in
it (9.4.0 onward) presumably knew what they were doing, and anyone
who contributed to a pre-1988 version was putting their work in
the public domain. Unfortunately, I'd have to check antique diffs and
changelogs to see whether anybody contributed substantial amounts of
comments under other circumstances.
I wouldn't worry about it though. Frankly most of it is obsolete anyway.
-------------
Finally, files with no explicit license notice.
These are either free or non-distributable.
Berne Convention law is pretty evil in some ways: it assumes that everything is
fully covered by copyright with no or few permissions granted; this applies
to anything first published after some date in 1988 in the US. (Items
published in the US prior to 1988 without copyright notices are in the public
domain, unless the author makes a big fuss and complains that the copyright
notice omission wasn't their fault and was unintentional.)
So the status of most of these depends on whether files with no copyright notices
at all should be taken to be "part of emacs" and therefore subject
to the GPL along with the rest of it.
Unfortunately some of the stuff in the /etc directory is clearly *not* part of
emacs and *not* licensed under the GPL, and most of the files in emacs have
explicit license notices, which tends to make me believe that the answer is
"no", we shouldn't assume that. (Contrast Linux, where most files do not have
explicit license notices, and the top-level license notice explictly states
that it applies to everything in the package without another license notice.)
Or it may depend on the file. The Zippy the Pinhead quotes and the random
email messages which people may not have wanted to license under the GPL are
particularly worrisome. Files like "README" and the "Makefile" are probably
best understood as part of Emacs.
Anyway, I list them all below. These are the license-free files which I found.
Most of these have no clear date of publication, and no clear author, but
where they do I mention it. Two were clearly published before 1988 and are in
the public domain; the rest do not have documented copyright or licensing
information.
The upstream emacs maintainers might want this list. GNU policy is generally
to put a copyright and license notice in every file, and I suspect the absence
from some of these files (like README and Makefile) is simply an oversight,
and that these files are in fact FSF copyright. Frankly this directory could
do with a good spring cleaning: anonymous cookie recipes are really not
necessary, and 8-year-old order forms are ridiculous.
BABYL
COOKIES
-- anonymous authorship
FTP
-- almost certainly too short to have a copyright
HELLO
-- almost certainly not copyrightable
JOKES
-- This consists of a bunch of different people's email messages, apparently
without permission to reproduce forever
LEDIT
-- email message from the person contributing ledit.l. Of course,
copyright and licensing is never discussed....
LPF
-- does the organization even exist anymore?
MACHINES
MAILINGLISTS
-- Last updated 1999.... emacs seems to be the home of cruft.
MH-E-NEWS
MH-E-ONEWS
MORE.STUFF
Makefile
ORDERS
ORDERS.EUROPE
-- Don't the upstream emacs maintainers ever clean anything up?
This is pretty obsolete.
ORDERS.JAPAN
-- see ORDERS.EUROPE
PROBLEMS
README
SERVICE
TERMS
TODO
Xkeymap.txt
celibacy.1
condom.1
-- Post-1988 (1992).
e/eterm.ti
-- Not copyrightable, as a collection of "facts" about eterm.
echo.msg
-- Released 1985 in US without copyright notice, so public domain.
emacs.bash
-- By Noah Friedman.
emacs.csh
-- By Michael DeCorte.
enriched.doc
future-bug
-- Email message by Karl Fogel <kfo...@floss.cyclic.com>.
ledit.l
ms-78kermit
-- Post-1988 (1989). Author "Andy Lowry".
ms-kermit
-- Post-1988 (1990). Author "Robert Earl (re...@watnxt3.ucr.edu)"
sex.6
-- Issued without copyright notice prior to 1988 (1987),
so it's in the public domain.
spook.lines
-- unlikely to be copyrightable, so I would assume it is public
domain
tasks.texi
-- Post-1988. Probably not subject to
general emacs license, since it seems to be very much not part of
emacs. An essentially obselete document ("last updated January 15,
2001"). See ORDERS.EUROPE.
ulimit.hack
-- Note that this is a piece of obselete junk which should
really be removed upstream. See ORDERS.EUROPE.
yow.lines
-- large numbers of quotations from Bill Griffith's Zippy comics,
without permission. There are so damn many of them that it
worries me. (Unlike the other lists, which don't consist entirely
of work by one author.) I'd remove it. Any other people want
to weigh in?
And the license-free graphics files. These probably have a better
claim to be "part of emacs" and under the general license than the
rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
in these files.
emacs.icon
emacs.xbm
gnu.xpm
gnus-pointer.xbm
gnus-pointer.xpm
gnus.pbm
gnus.xpm
letter.xbm
splash.pbm
splash.xpm
splash8.xpm
OK, that's all. Thanks for listening.
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
Doom! Doooooom!
MJ Ray
> And the license-free graphics files. These probably have a better
> claim to be "part of emacs" and under the general license than the
> rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
> in these files.
Some of these files look like C code. Can't the licence info be put
in a C comment in them? Some of them like emacs.icon already have a
comment. Either way, these don't seem a huge worry.
> emacs.icon
> emacs.xbm
> gnu.xpm
> gnus-pointer.xbm
> gnus-pointer.xpm
> gnus.pbm
> gnus.xpm
> letter.xbm
> splash.pbm
> splash.xpm
> splash8.xpm
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Thomas Dickey
> Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic follow.
This file is (mechanically generated) from ncurses' terminfo.src,
and a moment's consideration would show that there is substantial
creative content, not just "facts".
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
Josh Triplett
> Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic follow.
>
> and upstream probably will want to fix this. I would remove a lot of these
> even if they turn out to be free, as much of it is useless cruft.
Upstream will almost certainly *not* want to fix this, as much as we
might want them to. I don't think duplicating gnu.org/philosophy in the
emacs source tarball is a particularly good idea, but the emacs authors
(or at least those with a say in the matter) seem to.
> ObLicense: I hereby give permission to forward this message or any part of it
> (verbatim) to anyone who you think might find it useful.
Heh.
> Second, files with explicit license notices which aren't standard
> free licenses, apart from the non-free files you already identified
[...]
> COPYING
> -- Non-free (verbatim only), but we make an exception for it because it's
> the license for the program.
Even if not a freeness issue, it should be removed in favor of
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL.
[...]
> Finally, files with no explicit license notice.
>
> These are either free or non-distributable.
>
> The upstream emacs maintainers might want this list. GNU policy is generally
> to put a copyright and license notice in every file, and I suspect the absence
> from some of these files (like README and Makefile) is simply an oversight,
> and that these files are in fact FSF copyright. Frankly this directory could
> do with a good spring cleaning: anonymous cookie recipes are really not
> necessary, and 8-year-old order forms are ridiculous.
That line of reasoning seems quite reasonable; at a minimum, perhaps
they'd at least change it from legally ambigious to verbatim copying
only, which would at least clarify the situation.
[...]
> LPF
> -- does the organization even exist anymore?
The most recent news item on http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/ dates from
2005-10-22, so they seem to still exist, if not with a great deal of
activity.
ISTR seeing this on gnu.org somewhere with a verbatim only license
attached, but I could be wrong, and google doesn't seem to see it at the
moment.
> Makefile
I don't have this in my copy.
> celibacy.1
> condom.1
> -- Post-1988 (1992).
Probably a better fit for the funny-manpages package than the emacs package.
> echo.msg
> -- Released 1985 in US without copyright notice, so public domain.
Potentially modified since then; the CVS logs for emacs only go back to
"Sun Oct 3 12:34:45 1999", and that still leaves 14 years for
potentially copyrightable modifications.
In any case, more suited for the funny-manpages package than the emacs
package.
> sex.6
> -- Issued without copyright notice prior to 1988 (1987),
> so it's in the public domain.
Modified since then, according to emacs CVS.
In any case, more suited for the funny-manpages package than the emacs
package.
> spook.lines
> -- unlikely to be copyrightable, so I would assume it is public
> domain
Word lists can be copyrightable if the selection of the words involved
actual creativity rather than an exhaustive list; that list certainly
seems to qualify.
- Josh Triplett
Justin Pryzby
> > condom.1
> > -- Post-1988 (1992).
>
> Probably a better fit for the funny-manpages package than the emacs
> package.
> > sex.6
> > -- Issued without copyright notice prior to 1988 (1987),
> > so it's in the public domain.
>
> Modified since then, according to emacs CVS.
>
> In any case, more suited for the funny-manpages package than the
> emacs package.
Actually they are there too, in section 1fun.
Justin
Jérôme Marant
> Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic follow.
Thank you very much. This is an impressive piece of work.
I'll take some time to read it cautiously and come back if
any question.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
Jérôme Marant
After cautiously reading you message, here are my intends about the listed
files. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.
[CRUFT] Remove from any package
[NON-FREE] Move to non-free
[MAIN] Keep in main
ner...@twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
> Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic follow.
>
> If you can't stand to read this all, the brief summary:
> * As well as the ones you spotted before,
> DISTRIB, GNU, MOTIVATION, and gfdl.1 are non-free.
>
> * There are a lot of files without any copyright or licensing information,
> and upstream probably will want to fix this. I would remove a lot of these
> even if they turn out to be free, as much of it is useless cruft.
>
> ObLicense: I hereby give permission to forward this message or any part of it
> (verbatim) to anyone who you think might find it useful.
>
> -----
> First, an oddity:
> e/eterm
> -- binary included in the source tarball! Debian's general policy is
> to rebuild such things.
[CRUFT] Has to be rebuilt from e/eterm.ti
>
> ------
> Second, files with explicit license notices which aren't standard
> free licenses, apart from the non-free files you already identified
> (The ones you already identifed are
> CENSORSHIP
[NON-FREE] or [CRUFT] Shall we ever bother shiping unrelated essays?
> copying.paper
[NON-FREE]
> INTERVIEW
[NON-FREE] or [CRUFT] Shall we ever bother shiping unrelated essays?
> LINUX-GNU
[NON-FREE]
> THE-GNU-PROJECT
[NON-FREE]
> WHY-FREE).
[NON-FREE] It deals with software freedom, so maybe not [CRUFT]
> COPYING
> -- Non-free (verbatim only), but we make an exception for it because it's
> the license for the program.
[MAIN]
> DEBUG
> -- old GNU documentation license (unique copyleft). Free.
[MAIN]
> DISTRIB
> -- Non-free. No explicit permission to make modified copies (verbatim only).
[NON-FREE]
> GNU
> -- Non-free. "Modified copies may not be made".
[NON-FREE]
> MOTIVATION
> -- Non-free. Reprinted with permission, no permission to modify.
[NON-FREE] or [CRUFT] This text is not related to Emacs, shall we
really keep it?
> OTHER.EMACSES
> -- old GNU documentation license (unique copyleft). Free.
[MAIN]
> TUTORIAL and TUTORIAL.*
> -- old GNU documentation license (unique copyleft). Free.
[MAIN]
> emacstool.1
> -- GFDL-licensed without Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts,
> or Back-Cover Texts -- so considered acceptable. However, it's
> also irrelevant to Debian, since it's suntools-specific, so
> remove it, just so you don't have to worry about it any more.
[CRUFT]
> gfdl.1
> -- Licensed for distribution, but obviously this is a non-free
> document ("changing it is not allowed"). We would make an exception for
> it if it were the license for any part of the package. If all the
> GFDL documentation is removed, it must be removed too.
>
[NON-FREE]
> termcap.src
[CRUFT]
...
> BABYL
[MAIN] It describes a file format used by rmail or Gnus
> COOKIES
> -- anonymous authorship
[CRUFT]
> FTP
> -- almost certainly too short to have a copyright
[MAIN] where to get information about how to download Emacs through FTP
> HELLO
> -- almost certainly not copyrightable
[MAIN]
> JOKES
> -- This consists of a bunch of different people's email messages, apparently
> without permission to reproduce forever
[CRUFT]
> LEDIT
> -- email message from the person contributing ledit.l. Of course,
> copyright and licensing is never discussed....
[CRUFT]
> LPF
> -- does the organization even exist anymore?
[CRUFT]
> MACHINES
[CRUFT]
> MAILINGLISTS
> -- Last updated 1999.... emacs seems to be the home of cruft.
[MAIN] Informative about how to reach emacs lists?
> MH-E-NEWS
[MAIN] still used upstream since mh-e incorporated into Emacs
> MH-E-ONEWS
[CRUFT] Removed upstream
> MORE.STUFF
[MAIN] describes available external packages for Emacs
> Makefile
[MAIN] used to build e/eterm
> ORDERS
[MAIN]
> ORDERS.EUROPE
> -- Don't the upstream emacs maintainers ever clean anything up?
> This is pretty obsolete.
> ORDERS.JAPAN
> -- see ORDERS.EUROPE
[CRUFT] Both removed upstream
> PROBLEMS
[MAIN]
> README
[MAIN]
> SERVICE
[MAIN] or [CRUFT] Where to get help about emacs?
> TERMS
[MAIN]
> TODO
[MAIN]
> Xkeymap.txt
[MAIN]
> celibacy.1
[CRUFT]
> condom.1
[CRUFT]
> -- Post-1988 (1992).
> e/eterm.ti
> -- Not copyrightable, as a collection of "facts" about eterm.
[MAIN]
> echo.msg
> -- Released 1985 in US without copyright notice, so public domain.
[CRUFT]
> emacs.bash
> -- By Noah Friedman.
[MAIN] might be usefull. Noah probably assigned his copyright to the FSF
> emacs.csh
> -- By Michael DeCorte.
[MAIN] Likewise.
> enriched.doc
[MAIN] text sample of emacs editing capabilities
> future-bug
> -- Email message by Karl Fogel <kfo...@floss.cyclic.com>.
[CRUFT]
> ledit.l
[CRUFT]
> ms-78kermit
> -- Post-1988 (1989). Author "Andy Lowry".
[MAIN] or [CRUFT] terminals settings
> ms-kermit
> -- Post-1988 (1990). Author "Robert Earl (re...@watnxt3.ucr.edu)"
[MAIN] or [CRUFT] terminals settings
> sex.6
> -- Issued without copyright notice prior to 1988 (1987),
> so it's in the public domain.
[CRUFT]
> spook.lines
> -- unlikely to be copyrightable, so I would assume it is public
> domain
[CRUFT]
> tasks.texi
> -- Post-1988. Probably not subject to
> general emacs license, since it seems to be very much not part of
> emacs. An essentially obselete document ("last updated January 15,
> 2001"). See ORDERS.EUROPE.
[CRUFT]
> ulimit.hack
> -- Note that this is a piece of obselete junk which should
> really be removed upstream. See ORDERS.EUROPE.
[CRUFT]
> yow.lines
> -- large numbers of quotations from Bill Griffith's Zippy comics,
> without permission. There are so damn many of them that it
> worries me. (Unlike the other lists, which don't consist entirely
> of work by one author.) I'd remove it. Any other people want
> to weigh in?
[CRUFT]
> And the license-free graphics files. These probably have a better
> claim to be "part of emacs" and under the general license than the
> rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
> in these files.
>
> emacs.icon
> emacs.xbm
> gnu.xpm
> gnus-pointer.xbm
> gnus-pointer.xpm
> gnus.pbm
> gnus.xpm
> letter.xbm
> splash.pbm
> splash.xpm
> splash8.xpm
[MAIN] I think they are GPL.
Thanks!
--
Jérôme Marant
Josh Triplett
> After cautiously reading you message, here are my intends about the listed
> files. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.
>
> [CRUFT] Remove from any package
> [NON-FREE] Move to non-free
> [MAIN] Keep in main
I agree with all of these, except:
> ner...@twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
[...]
>> COPYING
>> -- Non-free (verbatim only), but we make an exception for it because it's
>> the license for the program.
>
> [MAIN]
[CRUFT]; packages should not include copies of the GPL, but should
instead refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL.
>> yow.lines
>> -- large numbers of quotations from Bill Griffith's Zippy comics,
>> without permission. There are so damn many of them that it
>> worries me. (Unlike the other lists, which don't consist entirely
>> of work by one author.) I'd remove it. Any other people want
>> to weigh in?
>
> [CRUFT]
Emacs actually does use this; M-x yow and M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead draw
Zippy quotes from this file. That doesn't necessarily change the
freeness status of it (though the quotes may still fall under fair use
or similar), but it probably changes it to [NON-FREE] at least.
- Josh Triplett