Emacs violates GPL since 2009
lists.gnu.org
Emacs violates GPL since 2009
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009
#2OK, it seems like it may have been an oversight (as in, not to hide anything or subvert someone else). The (over-)reaction by RMS may be a bit too harsh, when a simple README or something might suffice.
Every church has to have its pope, though ...
Edit: a simple README to point the issue in older tarballs might suffice -- though the issue has to be fixed going forward, no question on that.
Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009
#3OK, it seems like it may have been an oversight (as in, not to hide anything or subvert someone else). The (over-)reaction by RMS may be a bit too harsh, when a simple README or something might suffice. Every church has to have its pope, though ... Edit: a simple README to point the issue in older tarballs might suffice -- though the issue has to be fixed going forward, no question on that.
"[..]We are, in essence, distributing binary blobs with Emacs" (Chong Yidong)
Note the "in essence". They are not actually distributing binary blobs, they are distributing generated code made with a parser generator which they are not distributing, and they argue that this is equivalent of distributing binary code for all practical purposes, as the user "may neither fix nor extend the existing functionality."
Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009
#4OK, it seems like it may have been an oversight (as in, not to hide anything or subvert someone else). The (over-)reaction by RMS may be a bit too harsh, when a simple README or something might suffice. Every church has to have its pope, though ... Edit: a simple README to point the issue in older tarballs might suffice -- though the issue has to be fixed going forward, no question on that.
"[..]We are, in essence, distributing binary blobs with Emacs" (Chong Yidong) Note the "in essence". They are not actually distributing binary blobs, they are distributing generated code made with a parser generator which they are not distributing, and they argue that this is equivalent of distributing binary code for all practical purposes, as the user "may neither fix nor extend the existing functionality."
That post says they have to delete the old versions, but... If what you've said it true, they could just distribute the parser generator, or something that does the same job.
It's not unfixable.
Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009
#5I love how the GPL lets people not have the features they want because of nonsense like this. It's a clear case for more liberal licenses.
Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
"[..]We are, in essence, distributing binary blobs with Emacs" (Chong Yidong) Note the "in essence". They are not actually distributing binary blobs, they are distributing generated code made with a parser generator which they are not distributing, and they argue that this is equivalent of distributing binary code for all practical purposes, as the user "may neither fix nor extend the existing functionality."
That post says they have to delete the old versions, but... If what you've said it true, they could just distribute the parser generator, or something that does the same job. It's not unfixable.
The post clearly says they have to add the source or delete them.
Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009
#7"We have made a very bad mistake."
While I agree with this conclusion and that it needs to be fixed: Wouldn't the irony in the mistake have been a good opportunity to show some sense of humor?
Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009
#8"We have made a very bad mistake." While I agree with this conclusion and that it needs to be fixed: Wouldn't the irony in the mistake have been a good opportunity to show some sense of humor?
That, uh, does not come naturally to him.
Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009
#9OK, it seems like it may have been an oversight (as in, not to hide anything or subvert someone else). The (over-)reaction by RMS may be a bit too harsh, when a simple README or something might suffice. Every church has to have its pope, though ... Edit: a simple README to point the issue in older tarballs might suffice -- though the issue has to be fixed going forward, no question on that.
The problem here is not just that they are violating the GPL. The problem is that due to the GPL anyone who distributed or distributes one of the affected Emacs versions is violating the GPL.
A simple README doesn't solve this issue.
Re: Emacs violates GPL since 2009
#10"We have made a very bad mistake." While I agree with this conclusion and that it needs to be fixed: Wouldn't the irony in the mistake have been a good opportunity to show some sense of humor?
RMS doesn't strike me as a very cheerful person either, at least in email conversations, so it doesn't surprise me you're getting upvoted for this remark.
That said, it doesn't surprise me either that as a person known for sticking to his principles he'd take this situation very serious.
Also, I think I see what you mean by irony but calling it that would be more appropriate if Stallman himself would have made that particular commit or even if he would have been overseeing the project actively at the time the commit was made. But neither is the case: Chong Yidong committed it according to [1], and when the commit in question was made 2009-09-28 Stefan and Yidong had already taken over the maintainer role [2].
So really, not all too ironic from where I sit... hope this isn't spoiling a good joke :-)
[1] http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/lh/emacs/trunk/revision/97804
[2] http://emacs-fu.blogspot.com/2009/08/interview-with-chong-yi...