Per Andersson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Ricardo Catalinas wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:35:54PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> >> > Per Andersson wrote:
> >> > > I intend to package vimerl for Debian (current WIP).
> >> > >
> >> > > I suggest that ftplugin, indent, and syntax parts of vimerl should
> >> > > be included in Vim, and then I will package the rest of vimerl
> >> > > (autoload, compiler, and plugin) for Debian. (The parts autoload
> >> > > and compiler has Erlang code in them and I assume that is out of
> >> > > scope for Vim.)
> >> >
> >> > To include files with the Vim distribution the maintainer has to send
> >> > the file to me. All the files you appear to fall under the normal
> >> > runtime files, except perhaps the plugin.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am the Vimerl[1] maintainer, I attached ftplugin, indent and syntax.
> >> As Per explained, the other parts of the plugin depend on Erlang or
> >> don't fit the Vim runtime.
> >>
> >> [1] http://github.com/jimenezrick/vimerl
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > There already is an Erlang syntax and indent file. Maintainer is Csaba
> > Hoch. Can you please get in touch and merg the files?
> >
> > The license mentioned in the files is GNU GPL version 3. Can you please
> > change that to the Vim license? Otherwise I cannot include the files in
> > the distribution.
>
> Why can't GPLv3 files be included in the Vim distribution?
>
> Especially since Vim already bundles files that are GPLv2 (or later at
> your option) and the Vim License mentions GPL and GPL-compatibility
> several times. So changing to GPLv2 should also be ok?
The Vim license is GPL compatible, but once GPL is used it applies to
everything. It's a dual license mechanism.
For distributions that would like to include Vim it gets very
complicated if there are files with a different license. It would require
a lawyer or a judge to decide how this applies to the runtime files.
And then it might be a bit different for various countries.
> From my very short read of the Vim license and grep in the Vim source
> code I understand that Vim should already be distributed under GPLv2
> if Vimerl can't be GPL licensed due to issues GPL and including it...
I don't want to distribute Vim under GPL. License discussions are
mostly a waste of time.
> Although I suppose that one could see the redistribution of the GPL'd
> code as what the GPL refers to as an "aggregate"?!
The legal implications of this are unclear. It's a lot simpler for
everybody if we can distribute the whole of Vim under the Vim license.
And I really don't see a reason to put the GPL on a runtime file. Who is
helped by that? The GPL requires making the source code available for a
binary, but for runtime files there isn't a binary.
--
"I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they
make as they go flying by."
-- Douglas Adams
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
