Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 11:31, Eric S Fraga e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk wrote: On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 10:59, Marcin Borkowski wrote: [...] See how stupid this whole copyright law swamp is? What if I reuse just the basic structure of sentences in the docstrings, like in Subject + verb + preposition + object? Do I have to use GPL then, too? ;-) And what if I reuse the naming convention of the functions, but to make life easier, I'll just copy large fragments of code and do a query-replace on them? (This is serious.) Yes, this whole issue can be quite messy. The GPL is somewhat viral in nature and was (probably, arguably) intended to be so. Laudable goals but sometimes overbearing but let's no go there... Yes, it's not the discussion I'd like to get into now. My view would be that if you use any of org code and you want to release that code to the outside world, you will need to license the result under GPL. Given your intent to make your code public domain, this is not a bad way to go in any case. I disagree. Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do. A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even copy). Such things should definitely be in PD. Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to escape [ and ] characters in org-mode links
Hi Dmitry, org-mode has the following format for links: [[file-name::text-to-search][link text]] What should I do, if text-to-search contains ']' symbol? Like this: $form['input'] Not sure it helps in your case, but this * Heading containing [brackets] * Other heading Here is a link to [[Heading containing *%5B*brackets*%5D*][that first heading]]. works for me.
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Oleh Krehel ohwoeo...@gmail.com writes: Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: Hi all, after a short discussion in a recent thread, I have a serious technical question. Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right? And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.)) How do I do that? Is that even possible? Also, is it possible to get an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers? Like I said in an earlier message just a few minutes ago, you can do it, but you can't use org.el or Elisp at all, unless you implement your own Elisp engine that you call. Big disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and also no expert in this field. I am not sure about this. Look for example in the statistical languange R: R is licensed under GPL (https://www.r-project.org/COPYING i I think this is 2). You have numerous packages which =are under many different licenses: To quote from https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/ : , | R Licenses | | The following licenses are in use for R or associated software such as packages. | | The “GNU Affero General Public License” version 3 | The “Artistic License” version 2.0 | The “BSD 2-clause License” | The “BSD 3-clause License” | The “GNU General Public License” version 2 | The “GNU General Public License” version 3 | The “GNU Library General Public License” version 2 | The “GNU Lesser General Public License” version 2.1 | The “GNU Lesser General Public License” version 3 | The “MIT License” | | R as a package is licensed under GPL-2 | GPL-3. File doc/COPYING is the same as GPL-2. | | Some files are licensed under ‘GPL (version 2 or later)’, which includes GPL-3. See the comments in the files to see if this applies. | | Some header files are distributed under LGPL-2.1: see file COPYRIGHTS (on the SVN server). ` These packages all depend on R itself. So isn't this the same as in emacs / elisp? Isn't an exporter / .el file the same as a package in R, something which enhances the original product using a provided interface (the functions) but does not change anything in the original program (R or emacs)? Rainer The GPL isn't as evil as you make it out to be: in fact, it's not evil at all: it only ensures that you pass on the freedom that you receive to others, i.e. **you are not free to remove freedom from others**. As for documentation, here I cite a bit of Elisp manual: (a) The FSF’s Back-Cover Text is: “You have the freedom to copy and modify this GNU manual. Buying copies from the FSF supports it in developing GNU and promoting software freedom.” Just think about it: on 99% of published books it says: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Now who is the evil guy here? regards, Oleh -- Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany) Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology Stellenbosch University South Africa Tel : +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44 Cell: +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98 Fax : +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44 Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44 email: rai...@krugs.de Skype: RMkrug PGP: 0x0F52F982 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 11:46, Eric S Fraga e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk wrote: On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 11:05, Marcin Borkowski wrote: [...] Frankly speaking, I'm rather astonished at your and Eric's answers. I treated my question as a formality, and expected answers like Of course you can do it, don't be silly. Oh, sorry! I thought you actually did want to get some feedback on this. I'm not bothered at all what you do with your code ;-). ;-) Well, I did want that. I just didn't expect this... Some of us, for better or for worse, have lived through the whole development of open source, free software, public domain. I release my first software as pd back in the late 70s! Back then, the main worry was about implied warranties and not software freedom. Different world... I guess. And, by the way, copyright and licensing are two completely different issues (in response to an earlier email of yours in this thread)... True. I should have said (probably) intellectual property law. Notice how the very name contains a lie: there is no such thing as intellectual property, since intellectual things are not material and thus cannot be a property at all. And now I have another question, but I'll put in in a separate thread, I guess. cheers, eric Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
Oleh Krehel ohwoeo...@gmail.com writes: If anywhere in your code there's (require 'org), you have to release your code under GPL. Are you sure about that? By this logic, *any* .el file should be GPL as they use (defun ·), implicitly loaded from byte-run. Rasmus -- Lasciate ogni speranza o voi che entrate: siete nella mani di'machellaio
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
Rasmus ras...@gmx.us writes: Oleh Krehel ohwoeo...@gmail.com writes: If anywhere in your code there's (require 'org), you have to release your code under GPL. Are you sure about that? By this logic, *any* .el file should be GPL as they use (defun ·), implicitly loaded from byte-run. I'm pretty sure: you're calling a library that is GPLv3. There was this whole TiVo issue about linking GPL libraries to non-GPL code, which resulted in GPLv3. I just checked, and `progn' is GPLv3 and not GPLv2 (which would at least have a chance to be linked). --Oleh
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 27/07/15 14:42, Greg Troxel wrote: Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net writes: On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote: I disagree. Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do. A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even copy). Such things should definitely be in PD. [many excellent comments. As a nit, to reuse another's work under the GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you need their affirmative permission. And if much of org is assigned to the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission. That's a use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.] Indeed. A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing in a project in is more than a legal matter. The license terms are a declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed. In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the recipients receive rights to further share (and more). In other words, not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are distributed) will also be Free Software. With a BSD-style license, or PD, derived works may or may not be Free. Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted code and have it be PD. And as Daniele points out, new works being PD only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0). Very good points! I really like the declaration of intent pint of view. Cheers, Daniele
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de writes: These packages all depend on R itself. So isn't this the same as in emacs / elisp? Isn't an exporter / .el file the same as a package in R, something which enhances the original product using a provided interface (the functions) but does not change anything in the original program (R or emacs)? It's both the same and different. The legal question of whether R packages are derivative works of R is similar to the question of elisp packages that use editing primitives are derivative works of emacs. The social question is totally separate. It's obvious OK in the R world to have packages under other licenses. In the emacs world, it's far From obvious. pgpl0pXcsFXeK.pgp Description: PGP signature
[O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Hi all, after a short discussion in a recent thread, I have a serious technical question. Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right? And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.)) How do I do that? Is that even possible? Also, is it possible to get an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers? The manual says: , | Your two entry points are respectively ‘org-export-define-backend’ and | ‘org-export-define-derived-backend’. To grok these functions, you | should first have a look at ‘ox-latex.el’ (for how to define a new | back-end from scratch) and ‘ox-beamer.el’ (for how to derive a new | back-end from an existing one. ` So basically you are expected to use existing GPL'd code to learn to write new exporters. Also, the overall structure of the exporters is extremally similar. For instance, the :menu-entry argument of org-export-define-backend is almost the same for all exporters (and it should be, in order not to break usability!). Should I follow such conventions, in order to satisfy users, or should I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy lawyers? Also, the names of functions (like `org-latex-export-as-latex' vs `org-latex-export-to-latex') are similar across exporters. Should I use this convention, too, in order to satisfy fellow programmers, or should I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy lawyers? Also, the docstrings of many transcoders are similar. How am I supposed to write a docstring which is at the same time more or less comprehensive and different enough from the existing ones, so that I don't end up in jail? (--- this is actually a joke. I hope so at least...) And so on. Please refrain from comments about my stupidity or stupidity of the so-called IP law. And please understand that if I'm sounding a bit angry in this email, it's because I'm *very* angry about this whole lawyer mafia restricting my freedom (again). (Note: I'm all for restricting people's freedom when there are important reasons for that. I just consider this situation not to be one of these.) Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Andreas Hilboll li...@hilboll.de writes: On 27.07.2015 15:09, Greg Troxel wrote: Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de writes: These packages all depend on R itself. So isn't this the same as in emacs / elisp? Isn't an exporter / .el file the same as a package in R, something which enhances the original product using a provided interface (the functions) but does not change anything in the original program (R or emacs)? It's both the same and different. The legal question of whether R packages are derivative works of R is similar to the question of elisp packages that use editing primitives are derivative works of emacs. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL seems to give an answer: The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone. [...] Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked together. A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on. So if I understand this correctly, an R module can be non-GPL if and only if it does not use any GPL'ed R modules. Interesting. This actually i line with what I just read at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic : , | Does the GPL have different requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered work? (#GPLStaticVsDynamic) | | No. Linking a GPL covered work statically or dynamically with | other modules is making a combined work based on the GPL covered | work. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public | License cover the whole combination. See also What legal issues | come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software? ` According to this it seems clear: GPL compatible license. Cheers, Rainer Cheers, Andreas. -- Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany) Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology Stellenbosch University South Africa Tel : +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44 Cell: +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98 Fax : +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44 Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44 email: rai...@krugs.de Skype: RMkrug PGP: 0x0F52F982 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters. To this end, I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter. Rather obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex), which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in particular). I'd like to put my code in public domain. However, I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but still). Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or something? If anywhere in your code there's (require 'org), you have to release your code under GPL. If you want a Public Domain license, you'll have to write an exporter basically without using Elisp, since the GNU Emacs implementation of Elisp is GPL. You could write it in Python, for example, and just add a shell call in Elisp. In that case the Python code could be PD, while the couple-line Elisp shell call would still be GPL. regards, Oleh
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: after a short discussion in a recent thread, I have a serious technical question. Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm I will assume that you mean write and distribute. (The GPL grants permission to create derived works that are not distributed.) writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right? And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.)) How do I do that? Is that even possible? Also, is it possible to get an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers? Generally, no, it is not really possible, and a lawyer will not give you an answer, just an opinion about what the answer is likely to be, and the risks of various choices on your part. The exact boundaries of derived works in software is not settled case law. (Yes, I have actually consulted with lawyers on Free Software licensing issues.) Note that I'm a not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not yours -- and I have no idea what jurisdiction you're in, but I'm assuming a legal system somewhat similar to the US and Europe, with the Berne convention. , | Your two entry points are respectively ‘org-export-define-backend’ and | ‘org-export-define-derived-backend’. To grok these functions, you | should first have a look at ‘ox-latex.el’ (for how to define a new | back-end from scratch) and ‘ox-beamer.el’ (for how to derive a new | back-end from an existing one. ` So basically you are expected to use existing GPL'd code to learn to write new exporters. Learning is not a right reserved to the copyright owner. In all seriousness, copyright protects expression, not ideas, so learning things from copyrighted code is fine. Also, the overall structure of the exporters is extremally similar. For instance, the :menu-entry argument of org-export-define-backend is almost the same for all exporters (and it should be, in order not to break usability!). Should I follow such conventions, in order to satisfy users, or should I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy lawyers? The basic problem you have is that an existing body of code and culture of users is built around a particular license, and trying to deviate From that is in general rude (in general; a PD example is not a bad goal). I suggest that you stop trying to be inflammatory, especially incorrectly so. It's not about satisfying lawyers -- it's about following both the law and the norms of the Free Software commnity. The key question is what is and what isn't a derived work. That's more or less a work that extends the original work, a concept born in literature and applied to software. Also, the names of functions (like `org-latex-export-as-latex' vs `org-latex-export-to-latex') are similar across exporters. Generally, there is a notion of the size of copying that is big enough to matter. I have not heard much support for the notion that using similar variable names constitutes a derived work. Also, the docstrings of many transcoders are similar. How am I supposed to write a docstring which is at the same time more or less comprehensive and different enough from the existing ones? You certainly could rewrite it in your own words. But, you ask how am I supposed to as if there is some guarantee that you can essentially duplicate what's done but not be a derivative work. That isn't necessarily true, and you have no right to expect it. The law and licenses have consequences and it's entirely possible that you can't (legally and politely) do what you want. The tricky part about derived works is that a program which makes many calls into org to do something is arguably a derived work, even if you wrote all the lines yourself, because it extends the underlying program and is not sensible without that underyling code. I believe that the example of using defun is different, because lisp is something that's been implemented many times, differently. I see a lisp program as not being a derived work of the lisp implementation. This is much like a C program not being a derivative work of the operating system it runs on, because it is (or should be) coded to POSIX. All in all, I suspect that in practice, legally distributing a non-GPL exporter is iffy, and so I don't see any real downside to an example being GPL. (Do you know of an actual situation where someone who is going to write an exporter genuinely wants to distribute under other terms, and has a rational basis for that desire?) Your anger about copyright, when directed at other list members, is highly misplaced. This all originates from laws in various countries and the Berne Convention. It is those laws which prohibit you from copying other people's creative works
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net writes: On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote: I disagree. Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do. A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even copy). Such things should definitely be in PD. [many excellent comments. As a nit, to reuse another's work under the GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you need their affirmative permission. And if much of org is assigned to the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission. That's a use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.] Indeed. A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing in a project in is more than a legal matter. The license terms are a declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed. In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the recipients receive rights to further share (and more). In other words, not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are distributed) will also be Free Software. With a BSD-style license, or PD, derived works may or may not be Free. Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted code and have it be PD. And as Daniele points out, new works being PD only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0). pgpBtyftLCDDl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 27/07/15 14:25, Oleh Krehel wrote: Rasmus ras...@gmx.us writes: Oleh Krehel ohwoeo...@gmail.com writes: If anywhere in your code there's (require 'org), you have to release your code under GPL. Are you sure about that? By this logic, *any* .el file should be GPL as they use (defun ·), implicitly loaded from byte-run. I'm pretty sure: you're calling a library that is GPLv3. There was this whole TiVo issue about linking GPL libraries to non-GPL code, which resulted in GPLv3. I just checked, and `progn' is GPLv3 and not GPLv2 (which would at least have a chance to be linked). Hello, I'm not sure that using an interpreter for running some code classifies as linking, but I don't know of any official statement on the subject. On the other hand, Elisp is an extension language for a GPL program, thus it may be argued that implicitly everything coded in Elist is an extension of Emacs and therefore linked to it. I believe this issue must have come up before. Does anyone have a link to some statement from the GNU Project about this? Cheers, Daniele
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 2015-07-27, at 15:09, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de writes: These packages all depend on R itself. So isn't this the same as in emacs / elisp? Isn't an exporter / .el file the same as a package in R, something which enhances the original product using a provided interface (the functions) but does not change anything in the original program (R or emacs)? It's both the same and different. The legal question of whether R packages are derivative works of R is similar to the question of elisp packages that use editing primitives are derivative works of emacs. The social question is totally separate. It's obvious OK in the R world to have packages under other licenses. In the emacs world, it's far From obvious. OK, so let me pose another question: what if I *don't* distribute a package? (Whatever distribution means, it's probably unclear, but let us rely on common sense.) Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: Hi all, after a short discussion in a recent thread, I have a serious technical question. Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right? And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.)) How do I do that? Is that even possible? Also, is it possible to get an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers? Like I said in an earlier message just a few minutes ago, you can do it, but you can't use org.el or Elisp at all, unless you implement your own Elisp engine that you call. The GPL isn't as evil as you make it out to be: in fact, it's not evil at all: it only ensures that you pass on the freedom that you receive to others, i.e. **you are not free to remove freedom from others**. As for documentation, here I cite a bit of Elisp manual: (a) The FSF’s Back-Cover Text is: “You have the freedom to copy and modify this GNU manual. Buying copies from the FSF supports it in developing GNU and promoting software freedom.” Just think about it: on 99% of published books it says: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Now who is the evil guy here? regards, Oleh
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 2015-07-27, at 14:16, Oleh Krehel ohwoeo...@gmail.com wrote: Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: Hi all, after a short discussion in a recent thread, I have a serious technical question. Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right? And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.)) How do I do that? Is that even possible? Also, is it possible to get an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers? Like I said in an earlier message just a few minutes ago, you can do it, but you can't use org.el or Elisp at all, unless you implement your own Elisp engine that you call. Well, I hardly believe what I read here... The GPL isn't as evil as you make it out to be: in fact, it's not evil at all: it only ensures that you pass on the freedom that you receive to others, i.e. **you are not free to remove freedom from others**. As for documentation, here I cite a bit of Elisp manual: (a) The FSF’s Back-Cover Text is: “You have the freedom to copy and modify this GNU manual. Buying copies from the FSF supports it in developing GNU and promoting software freedom.” Just think about it: on 99% of published books it says: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Now who is the evil guy here? Let's not beat that dead horse again. (BTW, hardly anyone cares about that notice on published books, and rightly so.) regards, Oleh Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote: I disagree. Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do. A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even copy). Such things should definitely be in PD. As yourself pointed out in one of your emails, in many legal ordinations, there is no such concept as public domain: you cannot renounce to the copyright on your intellectual production. Therefore licensing something as public domain is not quite possible. If you want to grant the users of your code the most freedom (but do not care about this freedom being carried over to others) the 3-Clause BSD license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause, the 2-Clause BSD license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause, or the MIT license http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html are good candidate licenses formulated in the framework of copyright law as accepted internationally. However, you cannot derive your work from some other work distributed under GPL and license it with a more permissive license (as the ones suggested above). What constituted a derived work is however not scientifically defined (and you have been rather terse in describing how your work build upon code released under the GPLv3). In one place you explicitly mention running a query-replace on the source code: mechanical transformations of the source code are considered derived works, even if the end result does not resemble at all the original. I would suggest you to do derive your work from the GPL code and then consult with the authors about its licensing. If you are only using the GPL code as a skeleton, I think they would not have objections (but you could also easily re-implement it from scratch). Other than this I would recommend you to refrain from harsh comments on a matter on which you hold strong ideas but weak knowledge (as most of this thread demonstrates). Especially if your positions seem detrimental of the Copyleft model, and you are asking for help in a mailing-list devoted to a very successful Copyleft program. Cheers, Daniele
Re: [O] Questions about exporting: subtitle, level formating, custom highlight markers error
Thanks Rasmus and Eric! 1) subtitle The git version has a #+subtitle keyword. See the git version of the manual for supported backends (most). Where the git install instructions say you should edit local.mk to point to the appropriate install location, how do I find out where this is? Sorry, not used to using git :/ Is it possible to install the git version alongside the stable one, and choose which to use for each session? 2) level formating For LaTeX export, this will not work (AFAIK) as LaTeX only supports 4 or so levels of headings. Just tested: yes, 5 levels. At the 6th it treats them as list items. Well, it may be sufficient - I put '9' to leave some room. Depends on the backend. With latex you could use setkomafont (of KOMA-Script) and with html you could use css. If you want this kind of control, you should ensure that the LaTeX uses the scrartcl (koma-script) article class which is highly configurable. However, you will have to do the LaTeX configuration yourself directly using #+latex: and #+latex_header: org directives in your org document. For HTML export, you will need to define the appropriate CSS specifications to achieve the stair case effect. I have no idea how this would be done... Right, I'll have a look at koma-script. Would there be a tutorial/example somewhere for how to do this from Org? And perhaps this can take care of the subtitle issue, too, within the stable Org version? 3) Custom highlight markers error No idea about this. It could be a bug anywhere. Could you maybe post a small example file? I have no idea what you are describing unfortunately. I retrieved what I did, from here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20016634/highlight-selected-text-in-emacs-org-mode: You can re-define the characters for emphasizing via Options-Customize Emacs-Specific Option then input org-emphasis-alist. Then I added an item to the list for using the interpunct character ·, resulting in [INS] [DEL] List: Marker character: * Choice: [Value Menu] Font-lock-face: (sample) bold [ ] verbatim [INS] [DEL] List: Marker character: / Choice: [Value Menu] Font-lock-face: (sample) italic [ ] verbatim [INS] [DEL] List: Marker character: _ Choice: [Value Menu] Font-lock-face: (sample) underline [ ] verbatim [INS] [DEL] List: Marker character: = Choice: [Value Menu] Font-lock-face: (sample) org-verbatim [X] verbatim [INS] [DEL] List: Marker character: ~ Choice: [Value Menu] Font-lock-face: (sample) org-code [X] verbatim [INS] [DEL] List: Marker character: + Choice: [Value Menu] Face property list: [INS] [DEL] Key: :strike-through Value: t [INS] [ ] verbatim *[INS] [DEL] List: ** **Marker character: · ** **Choice: [Value Menu] Font-lock-face: (sample) highlight ** **[X] verbatim* Then when I write something like ·this· in my text, it is highlighted with a yellow background, within Org. But upon exporting I get the error mentioned. It does not appear to be due to some interaction with other stuff in my document, because the error occurs even for a minimal document that has only ·test· in it. So, a bug as Rasmus suggests, or a matter of configuration? cheers
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Hello Marcin,
On 27/07/15 14:10, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which
won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm
writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with
GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that
other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right?
And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.))
As Oleh Krehel pointed out in a reply to another mail of yours, if your
code links to org-mode code (or other GPL code) you cannot release it
under a different license. I'm not sure about how linking is intended in
Elisp sense of ('require)ing a library, but I believe it is analog to
executable linking in machine code programs.
Therefore, the only extensions to org-mode that can exist (and be
distributed, if you write code and keep it for yourself you are not
affected by the licensing terms) must be GPL.
Thus, it makes little sense to continue the discussion: even if you
would release the code in your tutorial under a different license, it
would be or no use for who will read it.
How do I do that? Is that even possible? Also, is it possible to get
an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers?
There is no need to have lawyers involved, if you are in doubt about the
interpretation of the GPL you can consult the FSF (or other
organizations) on the matter. They will be happy to answer your question
with a very high degree of authority on the matter.
The manual says:
,
| Your two entry points are respectively ‘org-export-define-backend’ and
| ‘org-export-define-derived-backend’. To grok these functions, you
| should first have a look at ‘ox-latex.el’ (for how to define a new
| back-end from scratch) and ‘ox-beamer.el’ (for how to derive a new
| back-end from an existing one.
`
So basically you are expected to use existing GPL'd code to learn to
write new exporters.
The manual makes the thing easy for the ones that want to respect the
authors choice of license.
Also, the overall structure of the exporters is extremally similar. For
instance, the :menu-entry argument of org-export-define-backend is
almost the same for all exporters (and it should be, in order not to
break usability!). Should I follow such conventions, in order to
satisfy users, or should I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy
lawyers?
First, your goal is not to satisfy lawyers, but to comply with the
license terms. The license terms are chosen by the authors of the code,
thus you are satisfying the wishes of whom granted you access to their
code. It is the minimum you should do to thank them.
Second, if that is the only structure that makes sense, you can
re-invent it without looking at the GPL code. Thus you can use a similar
structure in your differently licensed code. However, you should really
have re-created it without looking at the original. This email already
suggests otherwise.
Also, the names of functions (like `org-latex-export-as-latex' vs
`org-latex-export-to-latex') are similar across exporters. Should I use
this convention, too, in order to satisfy fellow programmers, or should
I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy lawyers?
Function names are not copyrightable (as far as I know).
Also, the docstrings of many transcoders are similar. How am I supposed
to write a docstring which is at the same time more or less
comprehensive and different enough from the existing ones, so that
I don't end up in jail? (--- this is actually a joke. I hope so at
least...)
There is a minimum unit of code that is copyrightable (the word the
appears in many copyrighted works, but you can still use it in your
own). If the doc-strings are trivial you can freely write something similar.
Cheers,
Daniele
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 27.07.2015 15:09, Greg Troxel wrote: Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de writes: These packages all depend on R itself. So isn't this the same as in emacs / elisp? Isn't an exporter / .el file the same as a package in R, something which enhances the original product using a provided interface (the functions) but does not change anything in the original program (R or emacs)? It's both the same and different. The legal question of whether R packages are derivative works of R is similar to the question of elisp packages that use editing primitives are derivative works of emacs. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL seems to give an answer: The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone. [...] Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked together. A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on. So if I understand this correctly, an R module can be non-GPL if and only if it does not use any GPL'ed R modules. Cheers, Andreas.
Re: [O] John's amazing indexing posts
Hi Erik, Erik Hetzner e...@e6h.org writes: I previously hooked up org with recoll with pretty good results. ... http://www.lesbonscomptes.com/recoll/ Thanks for the link. I tried it, and it actually works great on my system (unlike swish-e). And I did no configuration of mimeinfo, I only told it to index my whole org/ directory. If anyone is interested, I've added an Emacs interface to recallq (a shell tool that comes with recoll that you have to build yourself). See counsel-recoll command from https://github.com/abo-abo/swiper/blob/master/counsel.el. Initially, this command gives you a list of files that match the query. After selecting the file, it's searched for the current query. Unfortunately, the -A (abstract) switch isn't as useful as the context that e.g. grep gives, so I went only with the file names. regards, Oleh
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 07/27/2015 08:10 AM, Marcin Borkowski wrote: Please refrain from comments about my stupidity or stupidity of the so-called IP law. And please understand that if I'm sounding a bit angry in this email, it's because I'm *very* angry about this whole lawyer mafia restricting my freedom (again). (Note: I'm all for restricting people's freedom when there are important reasons for that. I just consider this situation not to be one of these.) If I understand correctly, you wish to use code that other people have written and published under the GPL. These people made the free choice put the conditions of the GPL on the code. I don't see how it is anything other than improper to reuse the code in a public domain setting. I prefer to respect the choices of the code's writers. Scott Randby
[O] Babel and R: Call code block and output plot
Hi. I'm playing a little bit with R code blocks in babel and calling them in different parts of my document (e.g. showing output in the main part and the code in the appendix). With most code blocks (e.g. setting some variables or outputting a LaTeX table with xtable) this works as expected (thanks to all working on this; its really great). Now I wanted to show a plot, but the associated code should also be shown in the appendix. In this case CALL seems not to work (not plot file is created or its empty). Here is a small example of what I'm trying to achieve: --8---cut here---start-8--- #+TITLE: Plotting Test #+OPTIONS: author:nil date:nil email:nil toc:nil #+CREATOR: Emacs 24.5.1 (Org mode 8.2.10) #+STARTUP: showall #+PROPERTY: session *R* #+PROPERTY: exports results * Main Part Here I want to show some plot: #+CALL: myplot[:exports results]() * Appendix Here the code of the plot should be shown: #+NAME: myplot #+BEGIN_SRC R :results output graphics :exports code :file my-plot.pdf hist(rnorm(50)) #+END_SRC --8---cut here---end---8--- Any ideas what I'm doing wrong or how to better achieve my goal? -- Until the next mail..., Stefan.
Re: [O] John's amazing indexing posts
There is also a helm-recoll package available. I came across recoll a few weeks ago when I saw that package! It also basically worked as advertised and I am just looking forward to some free time to figure out how to get the super focused search I worked out for swish-e. Has anyone tried using emacsclient for the html export? Maybe that would speed up indexing if a whole new emacs isn't spun up each time. Oleh Krehel writes: Hi Erik, Erik Hetzner e...@e6h.org writes: I previously hooked up org with recoll with pretty good results. ... http://www.lesbonscomptes.com/recoll/ Thanks for the link. I tried it, and it actually works great on my system (unlike swish-e). And I did no configuration of mimeinfo, I only told it to index my whole org/ directory. If anyone is interested, I've added an Emacs interface to recallq (a shell tool that comes with recoll that you have to build yourself). See counsel-recoll command from https://github.com/abo-abo/swiper/blob/master/counsel.el. Initially, this command gives you a list of files that match the query. After selecting the file, it's searched for the current query. Unfortunately, the -A (abstract) switch isn't as useful as the context that e.g. grep gives, so I went only with the file names. regards, Oleh -- Professor John Kitchin Doherty Hall A207F Department of Chemical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-7803 @johnkitchin http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu
Re: [O] Questions about exporting: subtitle, level formating, custom highlight markers error
On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 15:55, Xiha wrote: Thanks Rasmus and Eric! 1) subtitle The git version has a #+subtitle keyword. See the git version of the manual for supported backends (most). Where the git install instructions say you should edit local.mk to point to the appropriate install location, how do I find out where this is? Sorry, not used to using git :/ I think this is up to you. I don't change anything and so the location of the code is the installation location, e.g. ~/git/org-mode in my case. Is it possible to install the git version alongside the stable one, and choose which to use for each session? Check out load-path. Right, I'll have a look at koma-script. Would there be a tutorial/example somewhere for how to do this from Org? No idea, sorry. You can set the class to use with #+latex_class and options for that class with #+latex_class_options. And perhaps this can take care of the subtitle issue, too, within the stable Org version? No idea. 3) Custom highlight markers error No idea about this. It could be a bug anywhere. Could you maybe post a small example file? I have no idea what you are describing unfortunately. I retrieved what I did, from here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20016634/highlight-selected-text-in-emacs-org-mode: I am not sure the new exporter allows you to define new highlighting methods. The old one did but that was quite a while ago now. You can always use macros instead? -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 2015-07-27, at 15:05, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: after a short discussion in a recent thread, I have a serious technical question. Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm I will assume that you mean write and distribute. (The GPL grants permission to create derived works that are not distributed.) As I said a minute ago: I hope (at least) that I can write something non-GPL'd in Elisp and not distribute it. writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right? And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.)) How do I do that? Is that even possible? Also, is it possible to get an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers? Generally, no, it is not really possible, and a lawyer will not give you an answer, just an opinion about what the answer is likely to be, and the risks of various choices on your part. The exact boundaries of derived works in software is not settled case law. (Yes, I have actually consulted with lawyers on Free Software licensing issues.) Well, I do understand that a lawyer won't give me an answer. It's not something I would expect from a lawyer, after all. ;-/ But thanks for your answer! It seems that the most interesting (and most important) question, what is derived work, is answered nowhere. Cool. I find it a bit difficult not to be harsh in this situation - not against all you people who actually bear my rants, but against the system in general. *Hypothetically*, if someone asked me (in private, mind you) what he or she should do about the IP law system, I *might* consider the advice the best idea is to deliberately break it so that it falls apart faster to be among the better ones. Note that I'm a not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not yours -- and I have no idea what jurisdiction you're in, but I'm assuming a legal system somewhat similar to the US and Europe, with the Berne convention. Europe. , | Your two entry points are respectively ‘org-export-define-backend’ and | ‘org-export-define-derived-backend’. To grok these functions, you | should first have a look at ‘ox-latex.el’ (for how to define a new | back-end from scratch) and ‘ox-beamer.el’ (for how to derive a new | back-end from an existing one. ` So basically you are expected to use existing GPL'd code to learn to write new exporters. Learning is not a right reserved to the copyright owner. In all seriousness, copyright protects expression, not ideas, so learning things from copyrighted code is fine. I was not precise. What I meant was: if I learn from GPL'd code, I will (most probably) naturally tend to mimic it myself when writing my own. AFAIK, this is (more or less) how *culture* works. Am I the only one who sees IP law and culture be at some kind of opposition here? Also, the overall structure of the exporters is extremally similar. For instance, the :menu-entry argument of org-export-define-backend is almost the same for all exporters (and it should be, in order not to break usability!). Should I follow such conventions, in order to satisfy users, or should I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy lawyers? The basic problem you have is that an existing body of code and culture of users is built around a particular license, and trying to deviate From that is in general rude (in general; a PD example is not a bad goal). I suggest that you stop trying to be inflammatory, especially incorrectly so. It's not about satisfying lawyers -- it's about following both the law and the norms of the Free Software commnity. I am really, really sorry if someone considers me rude. But - forgive me - as I'm getting older (and wiser, I hope) I care less and less about following the law *blindly* (e.g., I consider my moral duty to follow the law, unless the law itself is immoral, when I may consider my moral duty to break the law. And that apart from the question of what to do if the law is at a contradiction with itself...). The key question is what is and what isn't a derived work. That's more or less a work that extends the original work, a concept born in literature and applied to software. Agreed. Also, the names of functions (like `org-latex-export-as-latex' vs `org-latex-export-to-latex') are similar across exporters. Generally, there is a notion of the size of copying that is big enough to matter. I have not heard much support for the notion that using similar variable names constitutes a derived work. Also, the docstrings of many transcoders are similar. How am I supposed to write a docstring which is at the same time more or less comprehensive and different enough from the existing ones? You
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 2015-07-27, at 17:13, Eric S Fraga e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk wrote: On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 14:10, Marcin Borkowski wrote: [...] And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.)) [...] And please understand that if I'm sounding a bit angry in this email, it's because I'm *very* angry about this whole lawyer mafia restricting my freedom (again). (Note: I'm all for restricting people's freedom when there are important reasons for that. I just consider this situation not to be one of these.) Interestingly enough, the whole premise of FSF and GPL is that restrictions imposed by hiding code and/or not allowing redistribution are restricting our freedom! As I wrote in other posts (today and also some time ago, on other FSF-hosted list), I used to consider FSF your typical 3-letter organization. Though I revised my standpoint on that a bit, I still am not a huge fan of FSF and GPL. Also, I don't consider distributing non-(free-as-in-FSF) software as morally evil, so I see no reason to force anyone to use GPL. You'll find some (many?) of us on this list will disagree fundamentally with you: for me, GPL is about freedom and ensuring that freedom is not restricted. Imposing GPL, as you put it, is about ensuring that those that want to make use of our code or text pass on the same rights they made use of in using this code or text. Grown from the TeX community, and knowing how TeX's license works, I find GPL to be rather restrictive. And what if I explicitly want people to be able to use my code in a proprietary software? Or if I just want to use the Unlicense? Or if I don't want to use GPL on principle? (And if I still consider Emacs to be technically superior to most other software, and do not want to stop using it and writing Elisp?) In all these cases, GPL actually restricts me. Note that all of the above is for people writing code that they subsequently wish to distribute. If they keep it to themselves, the licence used is a non-issue... That I already learned from this discussion. It's good that FSF does not try to deny me at least this minimal amount of freedom... ;-P Of course, nobody is forced to use any code I write so I am not stopping anybody from doing whatever they want with *their* code. Although my contributions to org are infinitesimally small, I expect the GPL to be observed in any derivation of org. With that I do agree (and it has nothing to do with the question whether I like GPL or not, it's just basic ethics). Now the main (and recurring) question: is an exporter a derivation of Org? My common sense says it's probably not. Is an exporter built by copying an existing one and replacing all the code relevant to one particular format with the code generating other format, leaving the skeleton (which is more or less identical in most if not all official exporters, and it's difficult to even conceive one radically different!) intact, a derivation of the existing exporter? My common sense is unsure, and hence my question and this discussion. Is any Elisp package a derivation of Emacs? My common sense says definitely not. YMMV, of course :-) Well, it seems it does. :-) BTW, while I do not consider myself a hacker (in a sense used by RMS) - I'm probably too inexperienced to deserve to be called that - I find it ironic in the context of this exchange to recall this excerpt from RMS's On hacking: , | Hackers typically had little respect for the silly rules that | administrators like to impose, so they looked for ways around. ` Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 14:10, Marcin Borkowski wrote: [...] And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.)) [...] And please understand that if I'm sounding a bit angry in this email, it's because I'm *very* angry about this whole lawyer mafia restricting my freedom (again). (Note: I'm all for restricting people's freedom when there are important reasons for that. I just consider this situation not to be one of these.) Interestingly enough, the whole premise of FSF and GPL is that restrictions imposed by hiding code and/or not allowing redistribution are restricting our freedom! You'll find some (many?) of us on this list will disagree fundamentally with you: for me, GPL is about freedom and ensuring that freedom is not restricted. Imposing GPL, as you put it, is about ensuring that those that want to make use of our code or text pass on the same rights they made use of in using this code or text. Note that all of the above is for people writing code that they subsequently wish to distribute. If they keep it to themselves, the licence used is a non-issue... Of course, nobody is forced to use any code I write so I am not stopping anybody from doing whatever they want with *their* code. Although my contributions to org are infinitesimally small, I expect the GPL to be observed in any derivation of org. YMMV, of course :-) -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 18:01, Marcin Borkowski wrote: [...] And what if I explicitly want people to be able to use my code in a proprietary software? Or if I just want to use the Unlicense? Or if I don't want to use GPL on principle? (And if I still consider Emacs You are perfectly able to do all of the above with *your* code. What you cannot do is unlicense my code which I may have released under GPL. This is the crux. I, and others, have not released our codes to be used however *you* see fit. We have released them under GPL which was our decision. If your code is not based on mine (or any other code released under GPL), then by all means do what you want with it and give whatever rights away you wish. If, however, it is based on GPL, you cannot do so. If you write a new exporter based purely on the documented API for use with org, you can distribute that perfectly fine with whatever licence you wish, AFAIK. If you take an existing exporter and modify it for your target, then you cannot do other than release with GPL. Likewise for your tutorial: if it refers to org documentation (e.g. link to Worg or (info)), that is fine; if it includes org documentation, you are back to having to release using GPL. (I'm not a lawyer -- the above is based on my understanding of the intent of those of us using GPL as part of org.) I'm off to make dinner now... :-) cheers, eric -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
Marcin Borkowski writes: I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters. To this end, I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter. Rather obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex), which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in particular). I'd like to put my code in public domain. I'm pretty sure that you cannot do that, for the simple reason that you cannot unilaterally waive all creators' rights (of which copyright is one part) in the EU to the best of my knowledge. There is also no such thing as putting something into the public domain in most jurisdictions anyway, since PD is defined as the absence of any applicable statutory rights. This also makes PD a very shaky ground to stand on, since something that is in the PD in one jurisdiction doesn't necessarily stay that way in another. You can license your publication in a way that effectively makes it indistinguishable from PD, though. However, I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but still). Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or something? If the reuse is substantial enough (from your description I'd say yes), then you have to license the result as GPL also. That is just for the code, not the tutorial, however. Regards, Achim. -- +[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]+ Wavetables for the Waldorf Blofeld: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldUserWavetables
Re: [O] John's amazing indexing posts
Hi Oleh, On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:19:35 -0700, Oleh Krehel ohwoeo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Erik, Erik Hetzner e...@e6h.org writes: I previously hooked up org with recoll with pretty good results. ... http://www.lesbonscomptes.com/recoll/ Thanks for the link. I tried it, and it actually works great on my system (unlike swish-e). And I did no configuration of mimeinfo, I only told it to index my whole org/ directory. Of course! I’ve forgotten exactly what I was intending to accomplish by converting to HTML - I believe I was generating citations - but recoll should be able to index plain text without issue. This will probably work better for org files, as well, since you can search the complete content. If anyone is interested, I've added an Emacs interface to recallq (a shell tool that comes with recoll that you have to build yourself). See counsel-recoll command from https://github.com/abo-abo/swiper/blob/master/counsel.el. Initially, this command gives you a list of files that match the query. After selecting the file, it's searched for the current query. Unfortunately, the -A (abstract) switch isn't as useful as the context that e.g. grep gives, so I went only with the file names. This is great, especially for me, as I’ve been using ivy lately. I believe that you can rewrite using the recoll tool directly instead of recollq, using `recoll -t -b 'search string'`: (defun counsel-recoll-function (string optional _pred rest _unused) Grep in the current directory for STRING. (if ( (length string) 3) (counsel-more-chars 3) (counsel--async-command (format recoll -t -b '%s' string)) nil)) If you use `recoll -A -t 'search string'` and do some post processing you could get snippets, too. I can’t see how to do that easily with counsel--async-command, though. best, Erik -- Sent from my free software system http://fsf.org/.
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 2015-07-27, at 18:12, Oleh Krehel ohwoeo...@gmail.com wrote: Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: And what if I explicitly want people to be able to use my code in a proprietary software? Then you're out of luck. Just like thousands (millions) of programmers are out of luck when they want to examine the code of a closed source proprietary software. Good point. I like the conciseness of your one-sentence summary of the situation:-). If I asked someone for Microsoft Word source code, because I want to understand why my macro doesn't work, they would laugh in my face. And then bring up that situation as a joke for years. A credit to FSF people: no one is laughing at you. Myself included, I tried to explain the benefits of GPL, but if you don't want to listen that's fine. I'm glad that nobody is laughing at me, though I don't like being accused of being impolite/rude/inflammatory - even if justly - and I even more dislike being accused of being irrespectful (and I consider this accusation to be unjust - after all, I came here to ask, and I plan to follow the rules, no matter how ridiculous they are). Also, I do listen to you - I just want to point out that, while GPL clearly has benefits (and I do not deny that!), it also has drawbacks, and that people are entitled not to like it. On a tangentially related note, as I pointed out in another post, you might want to make the license note on your blog compliant;-). --Oleh Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 14:52, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote: On 27/07/15 14:42, Greg Troxel wrote: Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net writes: On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote: I disagree. Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do. A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even copy). Such things should definitely be in PD. [many excellent comments. As a nit, to reuse another's work under the GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you need their affirmative permission. And if much of org is assigned to the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission. That's a use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.] Indeed. A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing in a project in is more than a legal matter. The license terms are a declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed. In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the recipients receive rights to further share (and more). In other words, not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are distributed) will also be Free Software. With a BSD-style license, or PD, derived works may or may not be Free. Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted code and have it be PD. And as Daniele points out, new works being PD only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0). Very good points! Indeed! I really like the declaration of intent pint of view. And I do not. I suspect that many authors don't care, and use GPL (or BSD, or other license) just so that they don't have to write a license themselves. Of course, this is only my suspicion, and I might be totally wrong. Cheers, Daniele Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to get list item depth within the exporter framework?
Hi Marcin,
Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes:
as I mentioned, I'm writing a simple exporter. However, I stumbled on
something apparently simple. How to get the current list level within
org-whatever-item transcoder?
I ran into this problem once; the solution I found was to just walk up
the AST via org-export-get-parent until you run out of parents.
Something like this should work (untested, and probably needs to be
tweaked, as my Elisp is a little rusty):
(defun find-depth (element)
Find the depth of a (list) element during export.
(let ((parent (org-export-get-parent element)))
(case (org-element-type parent)
('item (1+ (find-depth parent)))
('plain-list (find-depth (org-export-get-parent parent)))
(t 1
Hope that helps!
Best,
Richard
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote: That I've already learned. OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in. (Mind you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that. But this system is almost unbearable.) This statement confirms that you do not really understand what you are talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights, you cannot place something in the public domain. If you do not release your work with an explicit license, the default copyright protection law applies and this means (in all jurisdictions I know about) that you reserve all rights to yourself: none can use your code, and probably not even look at it. Other than this I would recommend you to refrain from harsh comments on a matter on which you hold strong ideas but weak knowledge (as most of this thread demonstrates). Especially if your positions seem detrimental of the Copyleft model, and you are asking for help in a mailing-list devoted to a very successful Copyleft program. Well, as I mentioned earlier, my knowledge is less and less weak, also thanks to your explanations. OTOH, the more I know about these issues, the more I dislike the status quo, and the more harsh my opinions about GPL in particular are. (It is not a secret that I am very critical of the GPL and of the FSF. Still, as I said before, I'm very hesitant about explicitly breaking their rules.) You are free to think whatever you want. However, using software released under the GPL (and profiting of the freedom that the GPL guarantees you) is not very coherent with your position. Cheers, Daniele
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: And what if I explicitly want people to be able to use my code in a proprietary software? Then you're out of luck. Just like thousands (millions) of programmers are out of luck when they want to examine the code of a closed source proprietary software. If I asked someone for Microsoft Word source code, because I want to understand why my macro doesn't work, they would laugh in my face. And then bring up that situation as a joke for years. A credit to FSF people: no one is laughing at you. Myself included, I tried to explain the benefits of GPL, but if you don't want to listen that's fine. --Oleh
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 2015-07-27, at 15:58, Scott Randby sran...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/27/2015 08:10 AM, Marcin Borkowski wrote: Please refrain from comments about my stupidity or stupidity of the so-called IP law. And please understand that if I'm sounding a bit angry in this email, it's because I'm *very* angry about this whole lawyer mafia restricting my freedom (again). (Note: I'm all for restricting people's freedom when there are important reasons for that. I just consider this situation not to be one of these.) If I understand correctly, you wish to use code that other people have written and published under the GPL. These people made the free choice put the conditions of the GPL on the code. I don't see how it is anything other than improper to reuse the code in a public domain setting. I prefer to respect the choices of the code's writers. I'm afraid that you didn't understand correctly, and I'm sorry for being too vague. Let me include an example. --8---cut here---start-8--- (defcustom ox-my-cool-menu-key ?o The dispatch key for the My-Cool exporter in the exporter menu.) (org-export-define-backend 'my-cool '((italic . org-my-cool-italic) (bold . org-my-cool-bold) (plain-list . org-my-cool-plain-list) (item . org-my-cool-item) (link . org-my-cool-link) (headline . org-my-cool-headline) (line-break . org-my-cool-line-break) (horizontal-rule . org-my-cool-horizontal-rule) (table . org-my-cool-table) (table-row . org-my-cool-table-row) (table-cell . org-my-cool-table-cell) (example-block . org-my-cool-example-block) (paragraph . org-my-cool-paragraph) (plain-text . org-my-cool-plain-text) (section . org-my-cool-section) (template . org-my-cool-template)) :export-block MY-COOL :menu-entry `(,ox-my-cool-menu-key Export to My-Cool ((?O As buffer org-my-cool-export-as-my-cool) (?o As file org-my-cool-export-to-my-cool (defun org-my-cool-paragraph (paragraph contents info) Transcode PARAGRAPH element into My-Cool format. CONTENTS is the paragraph contents. INFO is a plist used as a communication channel. contents) (defun org-my-cool-plain-text (text info) Transcode a TEXT string from Org to My-Cool. TEXT is the string to transcode. INFO is a plist holding contextual information. text) (defun org-my-cool-section (section contents info) Transcode a SECTION element from Org to My-Cool. CONTENTS holds the contents of the section. INFO is a plist holding contextual information. contents) (defun org-my-cool-template (contents info) Return complete document string after LaTeX conversion. CONTENTS is the transcoded contents string. INFO is a plist holding export options. contents) (defun org-my-cool-italic (italic contents info) Transcode ITALIC from Org-mode to My-Cool. (concat ' contents ')) (defun org-my-cool-bold (bold contents info) Transcode BOLD from Org-mode to My-Cool. (concat '' contents '')) (defun org-my-cool-plain-list (plain-list contents info) Transcode PLAIN-LIST to My-Cool. contents) (defun org-my-cool-export-as-my-cool (optional async subtreep visible-only body-only ext-plist) Export current buffer as an My-Cool buffer. (interactive) (org-export-to-buffer 'my-cool *Org My-Cool Export* async subtreep visible-only body-only ext-plist (lambda () (when (fboundp #'my-cool-mode) (my-cool-mode) --8---cut here---end---8--- The above fragment was written by means of taking (a fragment of) ox-latex, removing all LaTeX-related parts and filling in my ones (of course, this one is rather silly). Assume now that these functions will be expanded when needed by code generating suitable output. If I were an author of a (more sophisticated than the above) exporter, and someone would want to take it, put the meat aside, leave the skeleton (as above), fill it with his/her code and publish it under whatever license s/he wanted, I wouldn't see anything improper about it. (I *might* expect to be asked first, though, but this would be matter of politeness, but probably not ethics, and definitely not law. OTOH, I probably *would* expect the author to include a short note, like saying This code is modelled after ox-whatever.) I cannot see how using my code in such a way would be irrespectful. Actually, such a situation took place a few months ago, though not with any Elisp code, but with a LaTeX document I published on my website (someone wanted to take my document, leave the preamble and markup commands defined by me, and put his contents inside). He asked me if I'm fine with it, and my answer was Of course. He then proceeded to ask me how exactly the code is licensed, which I considered a nuisance; I told him to treat it as CC-licensed (under one of the CC licenses, I don't
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 2015-07-27, at 18:54, Eric S Fraga e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk wrote: On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 18:01, Marcin Borkowski wrote: [...] And what if I explicitly want people to be able to use my code in a proprietary software? Or if I just want to use the Unlicense? Or if I don't want to use GPL on principle? (And if I still consider Emacs You are perfectly able to do all of the above with *your* code. What you cannot do is unlicense my code which I may have released under GPL. This is the crux. I, and others, have not released our codes to be used however *you* see fit. We have released them under GPL which was our decision. Nope. As stated by someone here (Oleh, I guess), if I (require 'org), or possibly even just write Elisp, and want to distribute it, it has to be GPL. If your code is not based on mine (or any other code released under GPL), then by all means do what you want with it and give whatever rights away you wish. If, however, it is based on GPL, you cannot do so. Also, see my other post to see what I mean by being based in this context. It boils down to the question how much of other code (even rather generic parts) can I take and still consider this *my* code). And this is still not clear. If you write a new exporter based purely on the documented API for use with org, you can distribute that perfectly fine with whatever licence you wish, AFAIK. If you take an existing exporter and modify it for your target, then you cannot do other than release with GPL. Likewise for your tutorial: if it refers to org documentation (e.g. link to Worg or (info)), that is fine; if it includes org documentation, you are back to having to release using GPL. (I'm not a lawyer -- the above is based on my understanding of the intent of those of us using GPL as part of org.) I'm glad to hear that we (more or less) agree. I'm less glad that quite probably we are mistaken. I'm off to make dinner now... :-) cheers, eric Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 2015-07-27, at 14:39, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote:
Hello Marcin,
On 27/07/15 14:10, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which
won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm
writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with
GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that
other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right?
And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.))
As Oleh Krehel pointed out in a reply to another mail of yours, if your
code links to org-mode code (or other GPL code) you cannot release it
under a different license. I'm not sure about how linking is intended in
Elisp sense of ('require)ing a library, but I believe it is analog to
executable linking in machine code programs.
I understand, and I thank you for your clarification. (Though I still
consider it plain ridiculous. And the fact that Oleh's own blog is
CC-BY-NC-SA licensed, and contains many fragments of Elisp code, both
small snippets and whole functions, thus rendering it illegal, is
sweet;-).)
Therefore, the only extensions to org-mode that can exist (and be
distributed, if you write code and keep it for yourself you are not
affected by the licensing terms) must be GPL.
Thus, it makes little sense to continue the discussion: even if you
would release the code in your tutorial under a different license, it
would be or no use for who will read it.
I see. Funnily, I found a few Emacs blogs (also by renowned Emacs
hackers, like Oleh mentioned above) which clearly violate the rule that
any Elisp code should be GPL'd. So my intuition that nobody cares (at
least until explicitly asked) seems to be confirmed;-).
How do I do that? Is that even possible? Also, is it possible to get
an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers?
There is no need to have lawyers involved, if you are in doubt about the
interpretation of the GPL you can consult the FSF (or other
organizations) on the matter. They will be happy to answer your question
with a very high degree of authority on the matter.
As someone mentioned, lawyers will not answer any question with a high
degree of authority. Although I admit that this is not entirely their
fault.
The manual says:
,
| Your two entry points are respectively ‘org-export-define-backend’ and
| ‘org-export-define-derived-backend’. To grok these functions, you
| should first have a look at ‘ox-latex.el’ (for how to define a new
| back-end from scratch) and ‘ox-beamer.el’ (for how to derive a new
| back-end from an existing one.
`
So basically you are expected to use existing GPL'd code to learn to
write new exporters.
The manual makes the thing easy for the ones that want to respect the
authors choice of license.
I *do* want to respect the authors, and their choice of license. For
instance, after all this discussion, I will GPL my tutorial (and
probably include an explanation why it's not PD, CC0 or anything like
that). Although I doubt that all authors bear in mind (or even know)
these consequences of their choosing GPL.
Also, the overall structure of the exporters is extremally similar. For
instance, the :menu-entry argument of org-export-define-backend is
almost the same for all exporters (and it should be, in order not to
break usability!). Should I follow such conventions, in order to
satisfy users, or should I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy
lawyers?
First, your goal is not to satisfy lawyers, but to comply with the
license terms. The license terms are chosen by the authors of the code,
thus you are satisfying the wishes of whom granted you access to their
code. It is the minimum you should do to thank them.
I thank the authors in many ways. I also hold them in very high
respect. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I (as an author) consider
being nitpicky about licensing and such as wasting the author's time and
annoying him, and I see little or no value (besides satisfying
lawyers) in analyzing licenses like we are doing now.
Second, if that is the only structure that makes sense, you can
re-invent it without looking at the GPL code. Thus you can use a similar
structure in your differently licensed code. However, you should really
have re-created it without looking at the original. This email already
suggests otherwise.
And who cares whether I did look at the code or not? I mean, besides
lawyers?
Also, the names of functions (like `org-latex-export-as-latex' vs
`org-latex-export-to-latex') are similar across exporters. Should I use
this convention, too, in order to satisfy fellow programmers, or should
I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy lawyers?
Function names are not copyrightable (as far as I know).
Whoa! Now things are getting really funny. I'm not a logician, but
from what I recall from my logic
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 14:17, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote: On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote: I disagree. Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do. A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even copy). Such things should definitely be in PD. As yourself pointed out in one of your emails, in many legal ordinations, there is no such concept as public domain: you cannot renounce to the copyright on your intellectual production. That I've already learned. OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in. (Mind you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that. But this system is almost unbearable.) Therefore licensing something as public domain is not quite possible. If you want to grant the users of your code the most freedom (but do not care about this freedom being carried over to others) the 3-Clause BSD license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause, the 2-Clause BSD license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause, or the MIT license http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html are good candidate licenses formulated in the framework of copyright law as accepted internationally. Thanks for the suggestions! However, you cannot derive your work from some other work distributed under GPL and license it with a more permissive license (as the ones suggested above). What constituted a derived work is however not scientifically defined (and you have been rather terse in describing how your work build upon code released under the GPLv3). In one place you explicitly mention running a query-replace on the source code: mechanical transformations of the source code are considered derived works, even if the end result does not resemble at all the original. I agree that I was probably too concise. In another post I included an explicit example of what kind of transformations (mechanical or otherwise) I had in mind. I still personally find hard to believe that what I have in mind would consitute derived work. I would suggest you to do derive your work from the GPL code and then consult with the authors about its licensing. If you are only using the GPL code as a skeleton, I think they would not have objections (but you could also easily re-implement it from scratch). This seems wise. I'm not sure whether I would re-implement it easily, especially that I see no point in deliberately not looking at existing code. (Besides, I saw it anyway, and I can't unsee it;-).) Other than this I would recommend you to refrain from harsh comments on a matter on which you hold strong ideas but weak knowledge (as most of this thread demonstrates). Especially if your positions seem detrimental of the Copyleft model, and you are asking for help in a mailing-list devoted to a very successful Copyleft program. Well, as I mentioned earlier, my knowledge is less and less weak, also thanks to your explanations. OTOH, the more I know about these issues, the more I dislike the status quo, and the more harsh my opinions about GPL in particular are. (It is not a secret that I am very critical of the GPL and of the FSF. Still, as I said before, I'm very hesitant about explicitly breaking their rules.) Cheers, Daniele Thanks again, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 14:50, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote: I'm not sure that using an interpreter for running some code classifies as linking, but I don't know of any official statement on the subject. On the other hand, Elisp is an extension language for a GPL program, thus it may be argued that implicitly everything coded in Elist is an extension of Emacs and therefore linked to it. I believe this issue must have come up before. Does anyone have a link to some statement from the GNU Project about this? I'd also love to hear! Cheers, Daniele Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes:
On 2015-07-27, at 14:39, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote:
Hello Marcin,
On 27/07/15 14:10, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which
won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm
writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with
GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that
other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right?
And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.))
As Oleh Krehel pointed out in a reply to another mail of yours, if your
code links to org-mode code (or other GPL code) you cannot release it
under a different license. I'm not sure about how linking is intended in
Elisp sense of ('require)ing a library, but I believe it is analog to
executable linking in machine code programs.
I understand, and I thank you for your clarification. (Though I still
consider it plain ridiculous. And the fact that Oleh's own blog is
CC-BY-NC-SA licensed, and contains many fragments of Elisp code, both
small snippets and whole functions, thus rendering it illegal, is
sweet;-).)
Illegal? You are building strawmen.
Therefore, the only extensions to org-mode that can exist (and be
distributed, if you write code and keep it for yourself you are not
affected by the licensing terms) must be GPL.
Thus, it makes little sense to continue the discussion: even if you
would release the code in your tutorial under a different license, it
would be or no use for who will read it.
I see. Funnily, I found a few Emacs blogs (also by renowned Emacs
hackers, like Oleh mentioned above) which clearly violate the rule that
any Elisp code should be GPL'd. So my intuition that nobody cares (at
least until explicitly asked) seems to be confirmed;-).
There is no such rule anywhere so this is another strawman. You can
write an emacs module and use whatever license you want, put it up on
the web (or not) and do anything you want with it. Just don't expect
it to become part of emacs: it will have a separate life (and most
probably a short one when you get bored with it). Ditto for your
tutorial.
Nick
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 20:02, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote: On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote: That I've already learned. OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in. (Mind you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that. But this system is almost unbearable.) This statement confirms that you do not really understand what you are talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights, you cannot place something in the public domain. If you do not release your work with an explicit license, the default copyright protection law applies and this means (in all jurisdictions I know about) that you reserve all rights to yourself: none can use your code, and probably not even look at it. I do understand (at least I think so). And I do understand that my declaration of putting something in PD would be technically void. I just don't care about it, if the declaration of intent is clear. Other than this I would recommend you to refrain from harsh comments on a matter on which you hold strong ideas but weak knowledge (as most of this thread demonstrates). Especially if your positions seem detrimental of the Copyleft model, and you are asking for help in a mailing-list devoted to a very successful Copyleft program. Well, as I mentioned earlier, my knowledge is less and less weak, also thanks to your explanations. OTOH, the more I know about these issues, the more I dislike the status quo, and the more harsh my opinions about GPL in particular are. (It is not a secret that I am very critical of the GPL and of the FSF. Still, as I said before, I'm very hesitant about explicitly breaking their rules.) You are free to think whatever you want. However, using software released under the GPL (and profiting of the freedom that the GPL guarantees you) is not very coherent with your position. I don't think that the terms of GPL depend on what I think about them, right? Also, I think that I'm only in the position of taking something from the community; I try to give as well. Cheers, Daniele Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 14:42, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net writes: On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote: I disagree. Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do. A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even copy). Such things should definitely be in PD. [many excellent comments. As a nit, to reuse another's work under the GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you need their affirmative permission. And if much of org is assigned to the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission. That's a use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.] Indeed. A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing in a project in is more than a legal matter. The license terms are a declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed. I'm not unaware, I just don't believe it. In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the recipients receive rights to further share (and more). In other words, not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are distributed) will also be Free Software. With a BSD-style license, or PD, derived works may or may not be Free. That I do understand, my problem is what is derived work. Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted code and have it be PD. And as Daniele points out, new works being PD only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0). Yes. Thanks -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 2015-07-27, at 20:02, Nick Dokos ndo...@gmail.com wrote:
Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes:
On 2015-07-27, at 14:39, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote:
Hello Marcin,
On 27/07/15 14:10, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which
won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm
writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with
GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that
other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right?
And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.))
As Oleh Krehel pointed out in a reply to another mail of yours, if your
code links to org-mode code (or other GPL code) you cannot release it
under a different license. I'm not sure about how linking is intended in
Elisp sense of ('require)ing a library, but I believe it is analog to
executable linking in machine code programs.
I understand, and I thank you for your clarification. (Though I still
consider it plain ridiculous. And the fact that Oleh's own blog is
CC-BY-NC-SA licensed, and contains many fragments of Elisp code, both
small snippets and whole functions, thus rendering it illegal, is
sweet;-).)
Illegal? You are building strawmen.
Therefore, the only extensions to org-mode that can exist (and be
distributed, if you write code and keep it for yourself you are not
affected by the licensing terms) must be GPL.
Thus, it makes little sense to continue the discussion: even if you
would release the code in your tutorial under a different license, it
would be or no use for who will read it.
I see. Funnily, I found a few Emacs blogs (also by renowned Emacs
hackers, like Oleh mentioned above) which clearly violate the rule that
any Elisp code should be GPL'd. So my intuition that nobody cares (at
least until explicitly asked) seems to be confirmed;-).
There is no such rule anywhere so this is another strawman. You can
write an emacs module and use whatever license you want, put it up on
the web (or not) and do anything you want with it. Just don't expect
Really? As Oleh wrote:
,
| Like I said in an earlier message just a few minutes ago, you can do it,
| but you can't use org.el or Elisp at all, unless you implement your own
| Elisp engine that you call.
`
AFAIU, he wrote about writing *any* Elisp.
it to become part of emacs: it will have a separate life (and most
probably a short one when you get bored with it). Ditto for your
tutorial.
And thank you so much for your encouragement.
Nick
Best,
--
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Oleh Krehel ohwoeo...@gmail.com writes: Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: And what if I explicitly want people to be able to use my code in a proprietary software? Then you're out of luck. Just like thousands (millions) of programmers are out of luck when they want to examine the code of a closed source proprietary software. If I asked someone for Microsoft Word source code, because I want to understand why my macro doesn't work, they would laugh in my face. And then bring up that situation as a joke for years. A credit to FSF people: no one is laughing at you. Myself included, I tried to explain the benefits of GPL, but if you don't want to listen that's fine. --Oleh Amen. History over the last 500 years is littered with defunct social organizations based on rights of person (claims that members can't be excluded from the use or enjoyment of some social product, like the GPL). Over and over, the introduction into them of property rights (claims that individuals can exclude members from the use or enjoyment of some social product), often against violent protest, eventually destroyed both the social organizations and the rights of person they tried to perpetuate. All the best, Tom -- Thomas S. Dye http://www.tsdye.com
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On 27/07/15 18:59, Marcin Borkowski wrote: On 2015-07-27, at 14:39, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote: Therefore, the only extensions to org-mode that can exist (and be distributed, if you write code and keep it for yourself you are not affected by the licensing terms) must be GPL. Thus, it makes little sense to continue the discussion: even if you would release the code in your tutorial under a different license, it would be or no use for who will read it. I see. Funnily, I found a few Emacs blogs (also by renowned Emacs hackers, like Oleh mentioned above) which clearly violate the rule that any Elisp code should be GPL'd. So my intuition that nobody cares (at least until explicitly asked) seems to be confirmed;-). Only who detains the copyright in something can enforce his licensing terms. The copyright holder can decide that a specific use of its copyrights material is fine and allow it, despite it not following strictly the license agreement. In this case (I believe) the FSF recognizes that there is no point in nitpicking on the license of a few snippets of code. However, the FSF could ask in any moment to have the license of those snippets clarified. How do I do that? Is that even possible? Also, is it possible to get an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers? There is no need to have lawyers involved, if you are in doubt about the interpretation of the GPL you can consult the FSF (or other organizations) on the matter. They will be happy to answer your question with a very high degree of authority on the matter. As someone mentioned, lawyers will not answer any question with a high degree of authority. Although I admit that this is not entirely their fault. Who spoke about lawyers? I suggested to contact the FSF (or other organizations involved in GPL enforcement). The FSF is the organizations that wrote the GPL and that detains the copyright of a fairly large codebase released under the GPL. Therefore they know what they meant when they wrote it. Furthermore, they detain the copyright on Emacs (and its Elisp implementation) and org-mode, the project from which you are basing (or not) your work. Therefore, they are authoritative when they deal with copyright issues on that code. I will not comment on the rest of your nonsensical arguments. Cheers, Daniele
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 19:04, Marcin Borkowski wrote: [...] Nope. As stated by someone here (Oleh, I guess), if I (require 'org), or possibly even just write Elisp, and want to distribute it, it has to be GPL. I do not think this is true. I would like to see a proper reference where it is shown to be the case. Oleh? -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 27/07/15 20:20, Marcin Borkowski wrote: On 2015-07-27, at 20:02, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote: On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote: That I've already learned. OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in. (Mind you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that. But this system is almost unbearable.) This statement confirms that you do not really understand what you are talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights, you cannot place something in the public domain. If you do not release your work with an explicit license, the default copyright protection law applies and this means (in all jurisdictions I know about) that you reserve all rights to yourself: none can use your code, and probably not even look at it. I do understand (at least I think so). And I do understand that my declaration of putting something in PD would be technically void. I just don't care about it, if the declaration of intent is clear. If you do not care about the terms in which who receives your work is able to use it, why all the discussion? I thought that you were arguing that a less strict license than the GPL is better for the content of a possible tutorial and you were inquiring if you could release your code derived or inspired from GPL code with another license. Now you say that you do not care, or better you say that you do not want to give any rights to who receives your code. I think you are confused. Cheers, Daniele
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 20:30, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote: On 27/07/15 20:20, Marcin Borkowski wrote: On 2015-07-27, at 20:02, Daniele Nicolodi dani...@grinta.net wrote: On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote: That I've already learned. OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD might be that I explicitly state that I object the legal system I live in. (Mind you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far from that. But this system is almost unbearable.) This statement confirms that you do not really understand what you are talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights, you cannot place something in the public domain. If you do not release your work with an explicit license, the default copyright protection law applies and this means (in all jurisdictions I know about) that you reserve all rights to yourself: none can use your code, and probably not even look at it. I do understand (at least I think so). And I do understand that my declaration of putting something in PD would be technically void. I just don't care about it, if the declaration of intent is clear. If you do not care about the terms in which who receives your work is able to use it, why all the discussion? I thought that you were arguing that a less strict license than the GPL is better for the content of a possible tutorial and you were inquiring if you could release your code derived or inspired from GPL code with another license. Now you say that you do not care, or better you say that you do not want to give any rights to who receives your code. I think you are confused. I was unclear again, sorry. 1. As for my planned tutorial: I am reconciled with the idea that it might have to be GPL'd. Though I still maintain that GPL is not an optimal license for such work. 2. As for other code I might write and publish: I'm tempted to use the Unlicense (which is basically more or less putting it into the PD), even though it might (technically) be void. Cheers, Daniele Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?
Hi Marcin and all, Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: after a short discussion in a recent thread, I have a serious technical question. Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which won't be GPL'd. (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with GPL'd code a Bad Thing™. (The idea of a programming tutorial is that other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right? And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.)) I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc., but for what it's worth, here's my opinion: It sounds to me like you are not creating a program derived from GPL'ed code, but rather *quoting* GPL'ed code (and introducing some modifications to those quotes) in a document whose purpose is to educate its readers. I don't know about your jurisdiction, but in the U.S., that sounds to me like it would fall well within the bounds of fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use (There is also a brief section there about fair use in Poland; maybe that will help you?) Only a court can say, but if you are only publishing this source code as part of a tutorial, so that it - has an educational purpose - serves to discuss ideas that can be gleaned from reading the original - does not substantially copy the original - does not devalue the original then I would guess the GPL does not apply to the code, as it is quoted/derived in your tutorial, due to a fair use limitation. So my advice would be: (1) treat the code in your tutorial along whatever lines are appropriate for quotation of copyrighted works in your jurisdiction; and (2) maybe include a notice in your tutorial to your readers, that if they create *and distribute* a working exporter based on the code in your tutorial and/or code in the Org distribution, the GPL may apply. If you are actually distributing the complete exporter as a working program, that seems a little murkier to me; the issue there, as you are aware, is whether that working program counts as a derived work. I have no idea how to answer that question. Hope that helps! Best, Richard
Re: [O] Babel and R: Call code block and output plot
Hi Stefan, Stefan Nobis stefan...@snobis.de writes: Hi. I'm playing a little bit with R code blocks in babel and calling them in different parts of my document (e.g. showing output in the main part and the code in the appendix). With most code blocks (e.g. setting some variables or outputting a LaTeX table with xtable) this works as expected (thanks to all working on this; its really great). Now I wanted to show a plot, but the associated code should also be shown in the appendix. In this case CALL seems not to work (not plot file is created or its empty). Here is a small example of what I'm trying to achieve: #+TITLE: Plotting Test #+OPTIONS: author:nil date:nil email:nil toc:nil #+CREATOR: Emacs 24.5.1 (Org mode 8.2.10) #+STARTUP: showall #+PROPERTY: session *R* #+PROPERTY: exports results * Main Part Here I want to show some plot: #+CALL: myplot[:exports results]() * Appendix Here the code of the plot should be shown: #+NAME: myplot #+BEGIN_SRC R :results output graphics :exports code :file my-plot.pdf hist(rnorm(50)) #+END_SRC Any ideas what I'm doing wrong or how to better achieve my goal? You still have to specify the format of the results of the #+CALL line, as in #+CALL: myplot[:exports results]() :results file BTW, I also think the 'output' in :results is spurious. This work for me: --8---cut here---start-8--- #+TITLE: Plotting Test #+OPTIONS: author:nil date:nil email:nil toc:nil #+CREATOR: Emacs 24.5.1 (Org mode 8.2.10) #+STARTUP: showall #+PROPERTY: session *R* #+PROPERTY: exports results * Main Part Here I want to show some plot: #+CALL: myplot[:exports results]() :results file #+results: [[file:my-plot.pdf]] * Appendix Here the code of the plot should be shown: #+NAME: myplot #+BEGIN_SRC R :results graphics :exports code :file my-plot.pdf hist(rnorm(50)) #+END_SRC --8---cut here---end---8--- Best, Andreas
Re: [O] Org-Mode and ditaa
Hi Pascal, alternatively you could have installed ditaa and point ob-ditaa to it: #+BEGIN_SRC elisp (setq org-ditaa-jar-path /usr/bin/ditaa) #+END_SRC Not an answer to your actual question, though. Regards, Bernhard Pröll On Sat, 18. Jul 12:34, Pascal Lorenz wrote: Hi! When I tried to render an org-mode document containing a ditaa block, an error: Could not find ditaa.jar at /Users/username/.emacs.d/elpa/contrib/scripts/ditaa.jar. In fact the whole contrib folder was missing, and ditaa.jar wasn't anywhere on my disk. After a long search for problems with my configuration, I solved the problem by downloading the sources and copying the contrib folder manually, but shouldn't it be included in the org-plus-contrib package or at least be available as a separate one? Best regards, Pascal Lorenz
[O] Relative links and #+include:
I create the RSS feed for my blog with a file that #+include:'s the various blog posts; this way, when I export it to RSS using ox-rss.el, the full text of each blog post is in the feed. The feed is generated from a file called /rss.org, and the blog posts themselves are located in /blog/*.org. I've noticed that when a post has a relative link to another post, images, or source code, that link is broken. For example, when a post in /blog/zippers/huet.org links to kiselyov.org, which should be a link to the page /blog/zippers/kiselyov.org, the link is instead interpreted as a link to /kiselyov.org, since the post is being #+include:'d into a file in /. Is there any way to advise the #+include: process to resolve relative links correctly? Or a better way to include Org files in one another? —Pavel Panchekha
Re: [O] problems with beamer under the new exporter: no theme; unable to specify heading level; slides fill from bottom up
On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 00:06, Christopher W. Ryan wrote: Using org-mode 8.2.4-1 on Linux Mint. Below is a minimal working example of my problem. The trouble is that the Berlin theme is not applied--it remains the default theme. Do you need to export a sub-tree? I have no experience in anything other than full file export for Beamer. A sub-tree export doesn't work for me on this file. Also, the first slide (after the title slide) seems to fill from the bottom up rather than from the top down. That is, there is a big gap between the word Chemistry and the phrase Malodorous reduced sulfur compounds. This is a beamer issue and nothing to do with org per se. There are a couple of options (untested) if you don't like the vertical spacing. You can add a \vfill line at the end or you can add the [t] option to the frame. -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420
Re: [O] ox-latex: default packages cleaning
Sebastien Vauban sva-n...@mygooglest.com
writes:
FWIW, it seems that people who played with different LaTeX engines used
the LATEX_CMD property, as adviced on Worg [1]. Doesn't matter if we
change that, but just a reminder of some already common usage.
I didn't know that worg page. Just to understand, you are advising to use
LATEX_CMD as the keyword name? FWIW, that's fine with me, though
presently it's not really accurate as only {pdf,xe,lua}latex is allowed
(I'm hesitant to allow arbitrary scripts).
Rasmus
--
Not everything that goes around comes back around, you know
Re: [O] Questions about exporting: subtitle, level formating, custom highlight markers error
On Sunday, 26 Jul 2015 at 15:04, Xiha wrote: 2) I have #+OPTIONS: H:9 num:9 because explicit level structure is important for this document. I would like to have more control over For LaTeX export, this will not work (AFAIK) as LaTeX only supports 4 or so levels of headings. how this is exported, e.g. by setting heading font size as well as left-margin widths per level, for a staircase-like effect similar to that obtained with org-indent-mode in Org itself. (How) can this be done? If you want this kind of control, you should ensure that the LaTeX uses the scrartcl (koma-script) article class which is highly configurable. However, you will have to do the LaTeX configuration yourself directly using #+latex: and #+latex_header: org directives in your org document. For HTML export, you will need to define the appropriate CSS specifications to achieve the stair case effect. I have no idea how this would be done... 3) I forget through which command/menu, but I set custom markers that 'highlight' the words they surround, within Org itself. I'm using the 'leuven' theme which makes them stand out with a yellow background - useful for passages that need work etc. But now when I try to export to HTML or PDF, it fails with Unknown marker at 10497. Is there a way to get the highlighting in the exported document? Alternatively, can I tell the exporter to ignore the custom markers, i.e. treat them as regular characters? Could you maybe post a small example file? I have no idea what you are describing unfortunately. -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420
[O] Org-mode exporters licensing
Hi all, I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters. To this end, I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter. Rather obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex), which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in particular). I'd like to put my code in public domain. However, I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but still). Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or something? Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but still). Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or something? My guess would be no. You should ask the FSF lawyers. Rasmus -- What will be next?
Re: [O] Documentation patch
Thomas S. Dye t...@tsdye.com writes: Add a clause to indicate some languages don't support multiple Babel sessions. Thanks. Pushed! -- Dobbelt-A
Re: [O] ox-latex: default packages cleaning
Hello, Rasmus ras...@gmx.us writes: I have a few other questions: - how does one change the variant when doing a subtree export? By setting EXPORT_LATEX_VARIANT? It seems to work at least to the point that the right engine is written to the file: #+LATEX_VARIANT: xelatex * pdflatex :PROPERTIES: :export_latex_variant: pdflatex :END: * lualatex :PROPERTIES: :export_latex_variant: lualatex :END: - Is it possible to set a default variant? org-latex-variant = pdflatex FWIW, it seems that people who played with different LaTeX engines used the LATEX_CMD property, as adviced on Worg [1]. Doesn't matter if we change that, but just a reminder of some already common usage. Best regards, Seb [1] http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#using-xelatex-for-pdf-export -- Sebastien Vauban
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 10:16, Rasmus ras...@gmx.us wrote: Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but still). Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or something? My guess would be no. You should ask the FSF lawyers. You mean like no, it's not fine, or no, they won't come and get me? ;-) BTW, I'm not really afraid of EFF lawyers. I just don't want to do something with the EFF's owned code which EFF wouldn't like, even though I'm not a fan of either EFF or the copyright law in general. (BTW, AFAIK in my country it is technically impossible to put a work into public domain anyway. Or more precisely, there is a way: you just die and wait fifty years or something. Frankly speaking, I don't care too much about how this law works. Last time I talked to someone (one of the professors at my faculty) about copyright law, he expressed his opinion about the need of shooting all lawyers. I tend to disagree with him less and less over time. ;-) ) Rasmus Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
[O] How to get list item depth within the exporter framework?
Hi all, as I mentioned, I'm writing a simple exporter. However, I stumbled on something apparently simple. How to get the current list level within org-whatever-item transcoder? TIA, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 10:06, Marcin Borkowski wrote: Hi all, I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters. To this end, I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter. Rather obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex), which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in particular). I'd like to put my code in public domain. However, I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but still). Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or something? If you reuse GPL code, you have to distribute your code under GPL as well basically. From the COPYING file in the org distribution: [...] For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it. [...] Oh, and it's FSF lawyers you should worry about, not EFF! Two different organisations albeit with some overlap in goals. HTH, eric -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420
Re: [O] Specify org-latex-pdf-process for a single file?
Vikas Rawal vikasli...@agrarianresearch.org writes: Thanks all. I was not familiar with this way of defining local variables. Just checked the relevant part of the manual. Very useful. And, finally, one solution exposed on Worg: http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#using-xelatex-for-pdf-export Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban
Re: [O] How to get list item depth within the exporter framework?
On 2015-07-27, at 10:46, Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl wrote: On 2015-07-27, at 10:17, Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl wrote: Hi all, as I mentioned, I'm writing a simple exporter. However, I stumbled on something apparently simple. How to get the current list level within org-whatever-item transcoder? By inspecting values of org-whatever-item's arguments, I found out one way: by checking the amount of indentation in :bullet. Is it reliable? Ooops, my bad. Indentation is stripped from :bullet. So, what do I do? Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 10:42, Eric S Fraga e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk wrote: On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 10:06, Marcin Borkowski wrote: Hi all, I'm preparing a tutorial on writing Org-mode exporters. To this end, I'm writing a (simplistic) Oddmuse/WikiCreole exporter. Rather obviously, I'm modeling it on existing exporters (mainly ox-latex), which seem to share a lot of structure (function names and docstrings in particular). I'd like to put my code in public domain. However, I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but still). Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or something? If you reuse GPL code, you have to distribute your code under GPL as well basically. From the COPYING file in the org distribution: See how stupid this whole copyright law swamp is? What if I reuse just the basic structure of sentences in the docstrings, like in Subject + verb + preposition + object? Do I have to use GPL then, too? ;-) And what if I reuse the naming convention of the functions, but to make life easier, I'll just copy large fragments of code and do a query-replace on them? (This is serious.) For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it. I know that. My question is more like what does it mean to `reuse' code/text. Oh, and it's FSF lawyers you should worry about, not EFF! Two different organisations albeit with some overlap in goals. My bad, of course I meant FSF. HTH, eric -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On 2015-07-27, at 10:35, Rasmus ras...@gmx.us wrote: Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: On 2015-07-27, at 10:16, Rasmus ras...@gmx.us wrote: Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but still). Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or something? My guess would be no. You should ask the FSF lawyers. You mean like no, it's not fine, or no, they won't come and get me? ;-) I think you cannot share your code unless your release your example backend under GPL3+. You can presumably release the code backend under GPL and text under whatever. But, really, you should ask the FSF lawyers about this. Assuming they would understand my question... Frankly speaking, I'm rather astonished at your and Eric's answers. I treated my question as a formality, and expected answers like Of course you can do it, don't be silly. I guess I should have published it without asking... That's probably what I'm going to do in the future in similar cases. BTW, I'm not really afraid of EFF lawyers. EFF is the privacy organization. Do you mean FSF? Yes, of course, sorry. Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Change color for two words in LaTeX export using cologr package?
Hello,
Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de writes:
Eric S Fraga e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk writes:
On Friday, 24 Jul 2015 at 15:07, Rainer M Krug wrote:
In an org document, I want to change the text colour of two words
{\color{red} red line } to red in a sentence and the rest should be
normal colour.
I am missing something, as this changes the text colour for the rest
of the sentence into red. How can I only change the colour of the
two words?
I usually do this type of thing as follows:
#+latex: {\color{red}
red line
#+latex: }
which allows for org-isms in the text. Alternatively, you could do:
... @@latex:{\color{red} red line}@@
if you don't need to use org syntax within the {}.
Thanks - I will try it out on Monday. But it looks good.
Or, use a macro color...
I've begun writing such generic macros for basic and advanced formatting
(see [1]), though they are currently limited to the HTML backend:
#+MACRO: color @@html:span style=color: $1$2/span@@
I'll update that particular one in the coming hours or days.
Best regards,
Fabrice
Footnotes:
[1] https://github.com/fniessen/org-macros
--
Fabrice Niessen
Leuven, Belgium
http://www.pirilampo.org/
Re: [O] Change color for two words in LaTeX export using cologr package?
Fabrice Niessen fni-n...@pirilampo.org writes: I've begun writing such generic macros for basic and advanced formatting (see [1]), though they are currently limited to the HTML backend: LaTeX has textcolor via (x)xcolor (AFAIR). odt it probably pretty easy to get from LO trials. Rasmus -- This space is left intentionally blank
Re: [O] ox-latex: default packages cleaning
Hi, Sebastien Vauban sva-n...@mygooglest.com writes: (I'm hesitant to allow arbitrary scripts). I agree. Just stick to the basic need, which is to be able to easily change of LaTeX engine. I'd however also like to allow some flags, e.g. -shell-escape/write18 for minted. I cannot think of other useful flags. Thanks, Rasmus -- When in doubt, do it!
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 10:59, Marcin Borkowski wrote: [...] See how stupid this whole copyright law swamp is? What if I reuse just the basic structure of sentences in the docstrings, like in Subject + verb + preposition + object? Do I have to use GPL then, too? ;-) And what if I reuse the naming convention of the functions, but to make life easier, I'll just copy large fragments of code and do a query-replace on them? (This is serious.) Yes, this whole issue can be quite messy. The GPL is somewhat viral in nature and was (probably, arguably) intended to be so. Laudable goals but sometimes overbearing but let's no go there... My view would be that if you use any of org code and you want to release that code to the outside world, you will need to license the result under GPL. Given your intent to make your code public domain, this is not a bad way to go in any case. -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
On Monday, 27 Jul 2015 at 11:05, Marcin Borkowski wrote: [...] Frankly speaking, I'm rather astonished at your and Eric's answers. I treated my question as a formality, and expected answers like Of course you can do it, don't be silly. Oh, sorry! I thought you actually did want to get some feedback on this. I'm not bothered at all what you do with your code ;-). Some of us, for better or for worse, have lived through the whole development of open source, free software, public domain. I release my first software as pd back in the late 70s! Back then, the main worry was about implied warranties and not software freedom. Different world... And, by the way, copyright and licensing are two completely different issues (in response to an earlier email of yours in this thread)... To borrow a phrase: publish and be damned! [1] :-) cheers, eric Footnotes: [1] http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/14599.html -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-1293-g985420
Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing
Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: On 2015-07-27, at 10:16, Rasmus ras...@gmx.us wrote: Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl writes: I reuse parts of GPL'd code (as I mentioned, quite generic ones, but still). Is it fine, or should I expect a visit from EFF lawyers or something? My guess would be no. You should ask the FSF lawyers. You mean like no, it's not fine, or no, they won't come and get me? ;-) I think you cannot share your code unless your release your example backend under GPL3+. You can presumably release the code backend under GPL and text under whatever. But, really, you should ask the FSF lawyers about this. BTW, I'm not really afraid of EFF lawyers. EFF is the privacy organization. Do you mean FSF? -- Bang bang
Re: [O] How to get list item depth within the exporter framework?
On 2015-07-27, at 10:17, Marcin Borkowski mb...@mbork.pl wrote: Hi all, as I mentioned, I'm writing a simple exporter. However, I stumbled on something apparently simple. How to get the current list level within org-whatever-item transcoder? By inspecting values of org-whatever-item's arguments, I found out one way: by checking the amount of indentation in :bullet. Is it reliable? TIA, Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] ox-latex: default packages cleaning
Rasmus ras...@gmx.us writes:
Sebastien Vauban sva-n...@mygooglest.com writes:
FWIW, it seems that people who played with different LaTeX engines used
the LATEX_CMD property, as adviced on Worg [1]. Doesn't matter if we
change that, but just a reminder of some already common usage.
I didn't know that worg page. Just to understand, you are advising to
use LATEX_CMD as the keyword name?
Yes.
FWIW, that's fine with me, though presently it's not really accurate
as only {pdf,xe,lua}latex is allowed
AFAIK, it's not intended to do more than just indicating which flavor of
the LaTeX engine to use (and, then, correctly update the real commands
which will be run), that is {pdf,xe,lua}latex.
(I'm hesitant to allow arbitrary scripts).
I agree. Just stick to the basic need, which is to be able to easily
change of LaTeX engine.
Best regards,
Seb
--
Sebastien Vauban
