On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
That is how I interpreted it also. > 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. Understood. But as the rest of this thread shows the licensing of Vim was unclear. (At least regarding to what actually exists in the repository and not what it was supposed or thought to be.) >> 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. That is probably the discussion we should not take. I won't bother you trying to license Vim under something you don't want. The licensing was just unclear to me since you did not allow a license for new files which some existing files already had. Best, Per > -- > "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
