Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Emacs violates GPL since 2009

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009

#21

Post by dmm »

jimwise wrote: post #17

In fairness, this is stretching the meaning of `binary blobs' a little, right? I may be misreading, but the issue is that some of the elisp sources of CEDET were generated from bison input files automatically at some point -- but they're still elisp sources; a user can still modify them if needed, and if an asteroid hits the house of whoever did the original conversion, development can still continue that way. That d…

The language of the GPL says the source code is the "Preferred form for modification", it doesn't specifically mention binary blobs.

Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009

#22

Post by [deleted] »

jimwise wrote: post #17

In fairness, this is stretching the meaning of `binary blobs' a little, right? I may be misreading, but the issue is that some of the elisp sources of CEDET were generated from bison input files automatically at some point -- but they're still elisp sources; a user can still modify them if needed, and if an asteroid hits the house of whoever did the original conversion, development can still continue that way. That d…

[deleted]

Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009

#23

Post by Wilduck »

p4bl0 wrote: post #19
losvedir wrote: post #12

Cue GOB's "I've made a huge mistake." As much as RMS gets on my nerves sometimes, I have to admire him here. I feel like his reactions are over the top sometimes, but this shows me that at least they're consistently so -- even when he's the one at fault.

It strikes me that each time there's link on HN or reddit pointing to something RMS said/wrote, there's someone saying this. Always something along the line of "Usually he is overreacting/a dangerous fanatic, but this time I like what he said and how he said it". Once and for all let's admit that RMS is actually a quite reasonable guy and that when his reactions are "over the top" it is the exception and not the rule…

> Let's also realize that his "over the top" reactions are due to his role in the FSF and the GNU project.

I remember an interview with RMS where he basically said that, while this cause is very important to him, the amount of pressure he felt in his role as a free software leader was enormous. I think you're probably right, he seems to get a lot of scorn for being a radical, and not enough praise for his integrity and results.

Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009

#25

Post by wbhart »

jimwise wrote: post #17

In fairness, this is stretching the meaning of `binary blobs' a little, right? I may be misreading, but the issue is that some of the elisp sources of CEDET were generated from bison input files automatically at some point -- but they're still elisp sources; a user can still modify them if needed, and if an asteroid hits the house of whoever did the original conversion, development can still continue that way. That d…

No, this is not stretching the definition at all. There is no way to recreate the source of the parser generator from the automatically generated parser and grammar files. And in fact it would be entirely non-trivial to recreate it.

The parser also likely contains large tables of values autogenerated by the parser generator (though I didn't check this). There is no way the average developer could modify the parser to suit their needs. This would be even more difficult than disassembling a binary and altering the assembly language.

In a way I am glad this happened. After a months long ordeal some years ago involving strongly worded letters with threatening legal language due to an accidental violation of the GPL (which I simply don't use for new projects any more) I now have an uncontentious example that I can point people to which shows that even developers with the best of intentions make "serious" accidental mistakes!

Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009

#26

Post by owenmarshall »

p4bl0 wrote: post #19
losvedir wrote: post #12

Cue GOB's "I've made a huge mistake." As much as RMS gets on my nerves sometimes, I have to admire him here. I feel like his reactions are over the top sometimes, but this shows me that at least they're consistently so -- even when he's the one at fault.

It strikes me that each time there's link on HN or reddit pointing to something RMS said/wrote, there's someone saying this. Always something along the line of "Usually he is overreacting/a dangerous fanatic, but this time I like what he said and how he said it". Once and for all let's admit that RMS is actually a quite reasonable guy and that when his reactions are "over the top" it is the exception and not the rule…

IMO, RMS' reactions are rarely "over the top"; in fact, if you look at them, they are almost always completely consistent with his beliefs surrounding free software.

We may see them as "over the top" because we aren't as principled as he is.

Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009

#27

Post by losvedir »

p4bl0 wrote: post #19
losvedir wrote: post #12

Cue GOB's "I've made a huge mistake." As much as RMS gets on my nerves sometimes, I have to admire him here. I feel like his reactions are over the top sometimes, but this shows me that at least they're consistently so -- even when he's the one at fault.

It strikes me that each time there's link on HN or reddit pointing to something RMS said/wrote, there's someone saying this. Always something along the line of "Usually he is overreacting/a dangerous fanatic, but this time I like what he said and how he said it". Once and for all let's admit that RMS is actually a quite reasonable guy and that when his reactions are "over the top" it is the exception and not the rule…

My opinion of RMS's "over the top"-ness comes mainly from my time on the MIT CSAIL mailing list where his comments were routinely annoying and unhelpful.

Someone would email asking a question about Windows or Photoshop, and RMS would invariably chime in with something like, "you know, you shouldn't use that, it's like supporting a dictator."

So it is with that background that I was impressed with his comments here. On that mailing list I actually would say over the top reactions were the rule, rather than the exception. That said, maybe taken among all his public fora, he's quite reasonable. I haven't seen/heard him much elsewhere.

Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009

#28

Post by pyre »

I thought that you didn't have to distribute the source with the binary so long as you made the source available to anyone that go the binary from you. I.e. if I distribute a binary to someone and they email me looking for the source, I have to give it to them (also I think that you have to make it clear in the distribution that this is the case, though just mentioning that the software is GPL is probably enough).

Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009

#30

Post by sixtofour »

jimwise wrote: post #17

In fairness, this is stretching the meaning of `binary blobs' a little, right? I may be misreading, but the issue is that some of the elisp sources of CEDET were generated from bison input files automatically at some point -- but they're still elisp sources; a user can still modify them if needed, and if an asteroid hits the house of whoever did the original conversion, development can still continue that way. That d…

"In fairness, this is stretching the meaning of `binary blobs' a little, right?"

Stallman doesn't seem to think so, he labels it serious and calls for immediate correction.

Post reply on HN