Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> writes: > +1 on this and the list of proposed languages.
Thanks for the feedback. > Do any of these ob-* files have FSF copyright i.e. author assigned > copyright to FSF. Just wondering, given the contrib package will live in > non-gnu repo, if this is something we need to be concerned about or not? All these ob-*.el files are part of Org core, so they are part of Emacs and require the authors to sign the FSF papers. So there is no real problem here. org-contrib.git contains files with a free software license: most of them are GPLv3+, a few of them GPVv2(+) and one (or two, from memory) is using a MIT license. So there is no blocker for org-contrib.git to be packaged as a NonGNU package. > Strikes me there is nothing written in stone here, so if a language > becomes popular and it has maintainers, we can always review the > decision to move it 'out' and when justified, move back into core. Yes - on the other hand, we don't want to move files out of Org's core too often. > I think it is good having a clear distinction and the idea that if your > using a contrib package, it is 'best effort only' and not guaranteed to > work with the most recent org version compared to 'core', which has an > expectation it works with most recent org version. Yes, this is also the idea. That's why I called for more maintainers for the ob-*.el files, but we're not there yet, and for now it would be too drastic IMHO to remove some ob-*.el for which we don't have a maintainer or we are not 100% sure they are compatible. But luckily enough, I don't think backward compatibility problems happen often with Babel files. -- Bastien