Re: RFH: Non-free files in Emacs
After cautiously reading you message, here are my intends about the listed
files. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.
[CRUFT] Remove from any package
[NON-FREE] Move to non-free
[MAIN] Keep in main
neroden@twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
> Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic follow.
>
> If you can't stand to read this all, the brief summary:
> * As well as the ones you spotted before,
> DISTRIB, GNU, MOTIVATION, and gfdl.1 are non-free.
>
> * There are a lot of files without any copyright or licensing information,
> and upstream probably will want to fix this. I would remove a lot of these
> even if they turn out to be free, as much of it is useless cruft.
>
> ObLicense: I hereby give permission to forward this message or any part of it
> (verbatim) to anyone who you think might find it useful.
>
> -----
> First, an oddity:
> e/eterm
> -- binary included in the source tarball! Debian's general policy is
> to rebuild such things.
[CRUFT] Has to be rebuilt from e/eterm.ti
>
> ------
> Second, files with explicit license notices which aren't standard
> free licenses, apart from the non-free files you already identified
> (The ones you already identifed are
> CENSORSHIP
[NON-FREE] or [CRUFT] Shall we ever bother shiping unrelated essays?
> copying.paper
[NON-FREE]
> INTERVIEW
[NON-FREE] or [CRUFT] Shall we ever bother shiping unrelated essays?
> LINUX-GNU
[NON-FREE]
> THE-GNU-PROJECT
[NON-FREE]
> WHY-FREE).
[NON-FREE] It deals with software freedom, so maybe not [CRUFT]
> COPYING
> -- Non-free (verbatim only), but we make an exception for it because it's
> the license for the program.
[MAIN]
> DEBUG
> -- old GNU documentation license (unique copyleft). Free.
[MAIN]
> DISTRIB
> -- Non-free. No explicit permission to make modified copies (verbatim only).
[NON-FREE]
> GNU
> -- Non-free. "Modified copies may not be made".
[NON-FREE]
> MOTIVATION
> -- Non-free. Reprinted with permission, no permission to modify.
[NON-FREE] or [CRUFT] This text is not related to Emacs, shall we
really keep it?
> OTHER.EMACSES
> -- old GNU documentation license (unique copyleft). Free.
[MAIN]
> TUTORIAL and TUTORIAL.*
> -- old GNU documentation license (unique copyleft). Free.
[MAIN]
> emacstool.1
> -- GFDL-licensed without Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts,
> or Back-Cover Texts -- so considered acceptable. However, it's
> also irrelevant to Debian, since it's suntools-specific, so
> remove it, just so you don't have to worry about it any more.
[CRUFT]
> gfdl.1
> -- Licensed for distribution, but obviously this is a non-free
> document ("changing it is not allowed"). We would make an exception for
> it if it were the license for any part of the package. If all the
> GFDL documentation is removed, it must be removed too.
>
[NON-FREE]
> termcap.src
[CRUFT]
...
> BABYL
[MAIN] It describes a file format used by rmail or Gnus
> COOKIES
> -- anonymous authorship
[CRUFT]
> FTP
> -- almost certainly too short to have a copyright
[MAIN] where to get information about how to download Emacs through FTP
> HELLO
> -- almost certainly not copyrightable
[MAIN]
> JOKES
> -- This consists of a bunch of different people's email messages, apparently
> without permission to reproduce forever
[CRUFT]
> LEDIT
> -- email message from the person contributing ledit.l. Of course,
> copyright and licensing is never discussed....
[CRUFT]
> LPF
> -- does the organization even exist anymore?
[CRUFT]
> MACHINES
[CRUFT]
> MAILINGLISTS
> -- Last updated 1999.... emacs seems to be the home of cruft.
[MAIN] Informative about how to reach emacs lists?
> MH-E-NEWS
[MAIN] still used upstream since mh-e incorporated into Emacs
> MH-E-ONEWS
[CRUFT] Removed upstream
> MORE.STUFF
[MAIN] describes available external packages for Emacs
> Makefile
[MAIN] used to build e/eterm
> ORDERS
[MAIN]
> ORDERS.EUROPE
> -- Don't the upstream emacs maintainers ever clean anything up?
> This is pretty obsolete.
> ORDERS.JAPAN
> -- see ORDERS.EUROPE
[CRUFT] Both removed upstream
> PROBLEMS
[MAIN]
> README
[MAIN]
> SERVICE
[MAIN] or [CRUFT] Where to get help about emacs?
> TERMS
[MAIN]
> TODO
[MAIN]
> Xkeymap.txt
[MAIN]
> celibacy.1
[CRUFT]
> condom.1
[CRUFT]
> -- Post-1988 (1992).
> e/eterm.ti
> -- Not copyrightable, as a collection of "facts" about eterm.
[MAIN]
> echo.msg
> -- Released 1985 in US without copyright notice, so public domain.
[CRUFT]
> emacs.bash
> -- By Noah Friedman.
[MAIN] might be usefull. Noah probably assigned his copyright to the FSF
> emacs.csh
> -- By Michael DeCorte.
[MAIN] Likewise.
> enriched.doc
[MAIN] text sample of emacs editing capabilities
> future-bug
> -- Email message by Karl Fogel <kfogel@floss.cyclic.com>.
[CRUFT]
> ledit.l
[CRUFT]
> ms-78kermit
> -- Post-1988 (1989). Author "Andy Lowry".
[MAIN] or [CRUFT] terminals settings
> ms-kermit
> -- Post-1988 (1990). Author "Robert Earl (rearl@watnxt3.ucr.edu)"
[MAIN] or [CRUFT] terminals settings
> sex.6
> -- Issued without copyright notice prior to 1988 (1987),
> so it's in the public domain.
[CRUFT]
> spook.lines
> -- unlikely to be copyrightable, so I would assume it is public
> domain
[CRUFT]
> tasks.texi
> -- Post-1988. Probably not subject to
> general emacs license, since it seems to be very much not part of
> emacs. An essentially obselete document ("last updated January 15,
> 2001"). See ORDERS.EUROPE.
[CRUFT]
> ulimit.hack
> -- Note that this is a piece of obselete junk which should
> really be removed upstream. See ORDERS.EUROPE.
[CRUFT]
> yow.lines
> -- large numbers of quotations from Bill Griffith's Zippy comics,
> without permission. There are so damn many of them that it
> worries me. (Unlike the other lists, which don't consist entirely
> of work by one author.) I'd remove it. Any other people want
> to weigh in?
[CRUFT]
> And the license-free graphics files. These probably have a better
> claim to be "part of emacs" and under the general license than the
> rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
> in these files.
>
> emacs.icon
> emacs.xbm
> gnu.xpm
> gnus-pointer.xbm
> gnus-pointer.xpm
> gnus.pbm
> gnus.xpm
> letter.xbm
> splash.pbm
> splash.xpm
> splash8.xpm
[MAIN] I think they are GPL.
Thanks!
--
Jérôme Marant
Reply to: