5 ms·

I don't really understand what exactly this is. It looks like an open source version of emacs, but I don't understand how it is commercial. Could someone expl

I don't really understand what exactly this is. It looks like an open source version of emacs, but I don't understand how it is commercial. Could someone explain more or point to a better description of the project?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
flurie 4y ago
The "why" section of the repo explains it, but there may be some missing context. All contributors to Emacs are required to assign copyright to the FSF before their contributions will be accepted. This[1] explains why. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
- chungy 4y ago
  It kind of seems like a pointless middle finger to a situation in which... doing exactly this fork is permitted in the first place. Upstream GNU Emacs is already on a forge, putting it on GitHub doesn't seem to have much point beyond "because I can". Maybe he doesn't like the copyright assignment requirement? Fair, maybe, but I personally think it's not a big deal. "Commit rights" sounds like the bad old days of CVS/SVN. Send a pull request to GNU Emacs, get rejected or accepted. It's a lot easier nowadays.
  - b3morales 4y ago
    > Send a pull request to GNU Emacs GNU Emacs doesn't use pull requests.
    - chungy 4y ago
      Not sure what you think Emacs does, but it very much uses pull requests. You write/change code, commit it, send emails to a mailing list requesting to incorporate the code. Just because it's not GitHub doesn't mean it doesn't use pull requests (which predate GitHub, all the way back to Git's first releases in 2005).
- munch117 4y ago
  It's just so weird. If you think about it, this is the FSF saying that they don't believe the GPL works.
  - gmfawcett 4y ago
    I think it intentionally doesn't work in the way you're speculating here. Assigning copyright to FSF means that they can relicense the code in the future. We trust that this future license will be a GPL derivative. Suppose I don't sign over copyright. Instead I license my code to the world under GPLv3, and you incorporate it into your project. You can use and share my code under the terms of GPLv3, of course. But that doesn't mean you can share it under a future GPL version, say GPLv99, without my permission -- because the terms of those versions may be incompatible.
    - legalcorrection 4y ago
      A huge number of projects just license as "GPLv2/3 or later"
      - p_l 4y ago
        The default copy-paste license statement provided with GPL v2 and v3 explicitly allows "any future version" as well. It's rarer to encounter projects that remove that language (most importantly, Linux kernel)
    - munch117 4y ago
      The linked FSF statement by Eben Moglen is about enforceability, not future GPL licenses. The normal state of affairs for a GPL'ed project is having mixed copyright. After all, you can't stop anyone from forking to add their own, copyrighted, changes. That's the whole point. If mixed copyright means the GPL doesn't well enough, then the GPL doesn't work well enough, period. This is not an anti-GPL statement, on the contrary: Most people seem to trust the GPL well enough to not require copyright assignment. The FSF is the odd one out.
      - 4y ago
- ghostly_s 4y ago
  I read that and still have no idea what this is. What is "the oft ideated, never sublimated "forge" repository for emacs"?
  - flurie 4y ago
    It's certainly prolix, but it's a frequent topic of discussion that Emacs contribution is hindered by the patch model and copyright assignment. This gets rid of both at once, and forge[1] is (was?) a fairly common term, though the term may be falling out of use due to the increased popularity of the model. Loosely translated, "everyone talks about putting Emacs on GitHub, and no one does it, so here it is." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software)
giancarlostoro 4y ago
Its a reference to two things: the whole github is a non-free platform and the fact that if you for a GPL project and make changes you have to rename it as specified in the license so nobody mistakes your version for the original.
- btdmaster 4y ago
  have to rename it as specified in the license I could not find any such thing. The closest thing is the following: The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. Which part are you referring to?
  - giancarlostoro 4y ago
    I think you highlighted the part I'm referring to and I misinterpreted it long ago. I think the simplest way to emphasize that you've made changes is to re-name your fork, which is kind of standard for projects like this one where they're going to code, do their thing and pull in changes to stay current.
- mattl 4y ago
  So is gitlab.com — sadly The FSF have a list of issues. At least GitLab (even EE) has freely licensed JavaScript

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

flurie 4y ago

The "why" section of the repo explains it, but there may be some missing context. All contributors to Emacs are required to assign copyright to the FSF before their contributions will be accepted. This[1] explains why. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

chungy 4y ago
It kind of seems like a pointless middle finger to a situation in which... doing exactly this fork is permitted in the first place. Upstream GNU Emacs is already on a forge, putting it on GitHub doesn't seem to have much point beyond "because I can". Maybe he doesn't like the copyright assignment requirement? Fair, maybe, but I personally think it's not a big deal. "Commit rights" sounds like the bad old days of CVS/SVN. Send a pull request to GNU Emacs, get rejected or accepted. It's a lot easier nowadays.
- b3morales 4y ago
  > Send a pull request to GNU Emacs GNU Emacs doesn't use pull requests.
  - chungy 4y ago
    Not sure what you think Emacs does, but it very much uses pull requests. You write/change code, commit it, send emails to a mailing list requesting to incorporate the code. Just because it's not GitHub doesn't mean it doesn't use pull requests (which predate GitHub, all the way back to Git's first releases in 2005).
munch117 4y ago
It's just so weird. If you think about it, this is the FSF saying that they don't believe the GPL works.
- gmfawcett 4y ago
  I think it intentionally doesn't work in the way you're speculating here. Assigning copyright to FSF means that they can relicense the code in the future. We trust that this future license will be a GPL derivative. Suppose I don't sign over copyright. Instead I license my code to the world under GPLv3, and you incorporate it into your project. You can use and share my code under the terms of GPLv3, of course. But that doesn't mean you can share it under a future GPL version, say GPLv99, without my permission -- because the terms of those versions may be incompatible.
  - legalcorrection 4y ago
    A huge number of projects just license as "GPLv2/3 or later"
    - p_l 4y ago
      The default copy-paste license statement provided with GPL v2 and v3 explicitly allows "any future version" as well. It's rarer to encounter projects that remove that language (most importantly, Linux kernel)
  - munch117 4y ago
    The linked FSF statement by Eben Moglen is about enforceability, not future GPL licenses. The normal state of affairs for a GPL'ed project is having mixed copyright. After all, you can't stop anyone from forking to add their own, copyrighted, changes. That's the whole point. If mixed copyright means the GPL doesn't well enough, then the GPL doesn't work well enough, period. This is not an anti-GPL statement, on the contrary: Most people seem to trust the GPL well enough to not require copyright assignment. The FSF is the odd one out.
    - 4y ago
ghostly_s 4y ago
I read that and still have no idea what this is. What is "the oft ideated, never sublimated "forge" repository for emacs"?
- flurie 4y ago
  It's certainly prolix, but it's a frequent topic of discussion that Emacs contribution is hindered by the patch model and copyright assignment. This gets rid of both at once, and forge[1] is (was?) a fairly common term, though the term may be falling out of use due to the increased popularity of the model. Loosely translated, "everyone talks about putting Emacs on GitHub, and no one does it, so here it is." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software)

giancarlostoro 4y ago

Its a reference to two things: the whole github is a non-free platform and the fact that if you for a GPL project and make changes you have to rename it as specified in the license so nobody mistakes your version for the original.

btdmaster 4y ago
have to rename it as specified in the license I could not find any such thing. The closest thing is the following: The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. Which part are you referring to?
- giancarlostoro 4y ago
  I think you highlighted the part I'm referring to and I misinterpreted it long ago. I think the simplest way to emphasize that you've made changes is to re-name your fork, which is kind of standard for projects like this one where they're going to code, do their thing and pull in changes to stay current.
mattl 4y ago
So is gitlab.com — sadly The FSF have a list of issues. At least GitLab (even EE) has freely licensed JavaScript