[Python-mode] python.el

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 03.02.2011 22:48, schrieb Aaron Culich:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:13 PM,<skip at pobox.com>  wrote:
>
>>
>>     Georg>  - From reading emacs-devel, it seems that the python.el has made
>>     Georg>  changes to the mode and explicitly taken them out of the
>>     Georg>  copyright assignment for the FSF, so Emacs upstream can't include
>>     Georg>  them.
>>
>>     Georg>  So now we are at three different python modes for Emacs... :|
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand.  Someone forked python.el but won't allow the
>> changes to go back into the GNU version?  Wouldn't that violate the GPL or
>> LGPL.  Who did this?
>>
>>
> Copyright assignment is an issue separate from the license itself. To the
> extent that Dave's version is derived from the existing python.el then the
> GNU GPL still applies to his version of python.el if he distributes it to
> other people. He is the "owner" of the new code that he has written, so that
> means if he finds someone that redistributes his code in a manner that is
> violating the GNU GPL license, then he has the legal standing to pursue that
> violation in court as the copyright holder. However, no one else has the
> right to pursue it in court on his behalf; you could bring a case to court,
> but it would be thrown out in just the same way as if you tried to bring a
> lawsuit against someone illegally redistributing MS Word; you can't sue
> someone for that, but Microsoft can if they chose to. The license, whether
> free or proprietary, can only be enforced in the courts by the copyright
> holder.
>
> The issue of enforcement is one of reasons that the GNU project long ago
> made a requirement that any code contributions accepted back into the code
> base and officially branded as GNU software must also have any accompanying
> copyright assignment.
>
> There are other reasons, as well, including protection from patents so that
> it would prevent someone from contributing source code to the GNU project on
> one hand, and then on the other hand using patents against the same set of
> code. You can read that in the language of one of the example copyright
> assignment forms I've linked to below.
>
> -Aaron
>
> Here is some further reading:
>
> An official statement about why they require copyright assignment:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
>
> An example of the copyright assignment form
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-09/msg00678.html
>
> Excerpt from the above form intended to protect against harm from patents:
>
>>     The Assigner hereby agrees that if it has or acquires hereafter any
>> patent or interface copyright or other intellectual property interest
>> dominating the program enhanced by the Work (or use of that program), such
>> dominating interest will not be used to undermine the effect of this
>> assignment, i.e. the Foundation and the general public will be licensed to
>> use, in that program and its derivative works, without royalty or
>> limitation, the subject matter of the dominating interest.  This license
>> provision will be binding on the assignees of, or other successors to, the
>> dominating interest, as well as on the Assigner.
>>

Hi Aaron,

saw you digged into this only after sending my short statement with 
other post.
Sorry for that, would have been more explicit seeing the interest in the 
matter.

It is wast one beside.

FSF thinks by making these assignment provisions,
--partly to the extent of the contributors, setting
them on risk rather than the FSF itself-- to do
something good.

Far from that: by raising the level of
specification already it provides uncertainty rather
than certainty.

Let me point at the risks already introduced by GPL in
this globalised world. Any conflict around would
endanger contributors, as being summoned before a
Bostonian court many of them will not be able to pay
  the costs.

 From this perspective GPL already bears a --rather
unspecified-- but potential menace and danger for all
using it.

Decided taking that risk, as you see. But I'm not
willing to take more.

As for copy-rights I'm protected by our domestic laws,
which promess even gratis assistance in certain cases
of conflicts. Why should I give up that protection by
signing up to US-courts?

Andreas

--
https://code.launchpad.net/~a-roehler/python-mode/python-mode-components
https://code.launchpad.net/s-x-emacs-werkstatt/