On 13 mrt. 2013, at 13:35, Andreas Röhler <andreas.roeh...@easy-emacs.de> wrote:
> Am 13.03.2013 13:10, schrieb Bastien: >> Andreas Röhler <andreas.roeh...@easy-emacs.de> writes: >> >>> Or maybe drop that sentence. >> >> Nope: the whole purpose of clarifying is to make it clear what are >> the licensing terms, when the assignement is needed, and what are the >> consequences of assigning the copyright. >> >> We should be short but exhaustive here. >> >> The idea is to make sure people understand that sending patches for >> Org's core is *exactly* like having the patch integrated into Emacs. >> Both the copyright assignment and the agreement on the licensing terms >> are preconditions. >> > > Hi Bastien, Hi Carsten, > > as these legal matters are of interest to a certain extend: > > 1) does this change/sentence meet the problem arised? I think so. Jambunathan tried to argue that his signed copyright assignment papers should only become active at the moment the changes arrive at Emacs. > 2) is the sentence in question here true, can it be true? > > 1d There was no misunderstanding but displayed frustration, eagerness or > whatever. > No misunderstanding, no need to clarify the pretended matter. The motive was disgruntlement, but the argument was based on this perceived loophole. > > 2nd) If someone changes a GPLed file while propagating the changes with a > compatible license as mentioned > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses: > > Is org-mode going to create its own legislation excluding this? :) No, we are not creating legislation. We are writing down a policy. If the case your describe should arise, it can be dealt with then. - Carsten
