Summary for the impatient:
-1. Don't add a file to Emacs written by someone other than yourself
-without thinking about the legal aspect (make sure they have an
-assignment, adjust the copyright statements in the file). NB the
-ChangeLog entry should be in the name of the author of the code, not
-the person who installs it.
-
-2. With images, add the legal info to a README file in the directory
+1. Don't add code to Emacs written by someone other than yourself
+without thinking about the legal aspect. Even if the changes are
+trivial, consider if they combine with previous changes by the same
+author to make a non-trivial total. If so, make sure they have an
+assignment. If adding a whole file adjust the copyright statements in
+the file.
+
+2. When installing code written by someone else, the ChangeLog entry
+should be in the name of the author of the code, not the person who
+installs it. I think it is helpful to put the author (if not yourself)
+in the CVS log as well; and to not install any of your own changes in
+the same commit.
+
+3. With images, add the legal info to a README file in the directory
containing the image.
-3. If you add a lot of text to a previously trivial file that had no
+4. If you add a lot of text to a previously trivial file that had no
legal notices, consider if you should add a copyright statement.
+5. Please don't just add an FSF copyright without checking that is the
+right thing to do.
+
Every non-trivial file distributed through the Emacs CVS should be
self-explanatory in terms of copyright and license. This includes
consider whether your changes have made the file worthy of a copyright
notice, and if so, please add one.
+It can be helpful to put a reminder comment at the start of a trivial
+file, eg: "add a license notice if this grows to > 10 lines of code".
+
The years in the copyright notice should be updated every year (see
file "years" in this directory). The PS versions of refcards etc
should display copyright notices (an exception to the rule about
mac/src/Emacs.r # resource 'vers'
src/emacs.c
- remember to change the latest copyright year in the --version output.
- [Post-release, will automate this like set-version does for version.]
+ `set-copyright' in admin.el will do all the above.
<top-level>/install-sh
lispintro/install-sh
src/m/news-r6.h
public domain, leave alone.
+etc/BABYL, ms-kermit
+ no notices (see below).
+
etc/edt-user.doc
- update BOTH notices in this file
etc/emacs.csh
- - keep simple license for this simple file
+ - written by Michael DeCorte, who has no assignment. But trivial
+ enough to not need license.
+
+etc/future-bug
+ - doesn't need a humourless disclaimer, because Karl Fogel says we
+ can consider it part of Emacs, and he has a blanker disclaimer for
+ Emacs changes. (email to rgm "[Emacs-commit] emacs/etc future-bug",
+ 2007028)
etc/letter.pbm,letter.xpm
- trivial, no notice needed.
licenses that they have. They are distributed with Emacs but they
are not part of Emacs."
+etc/HELLO
+ standard notices. Just a note that although the file itself is not
+ really copyrightable, in the wider context of it being part of
+ Emacs (and written by those with assignments), a standard notice is
+ fine.
+
etc/MAILINGLISTS
rms: simple license is fine for this file
leim/MISC-DIC/CTLau-b5.html, CTLau.html, cangjie-table.b5, cangjie-table.cns,
pinyin.map, ziranma.cin
- leave the copyright alone.
+Note that pinyin.map, ziranma.cin (and hence the generated
+leim/quail/PY.el, ZIRANMA.el) are under GPLv1 or later.
leim/SKK-DIC/SKK-JISYO.L
ja-dic/ja-dic.el
(the latter is auto-generated from the former). Leave the copyright alone.
lib-src/etags.c
- - this has a copyright Ken Arnold. We are still deciding what should
- be done here (see below).
+ Copyright information is duplicated in etc/ETAGS.README. Update that
+ file too.
+
+ Until 2007 etags.c was described as being copyright FSF and Ken Arnold.
+ After some investigation in Feb 2007, then to the best of our
+ knowledge we believe that the original 1984 Emacs version was based
+ on the version in BSD4.2. See for example this 1985 post from Ken Arnold:
+ <http://groups.google.com/group/mod.sources/browse_thread/thread/ffe5c55845a640a9>
+ I have received enough requests for the current source to ctags
+ to post it. Here is the latest version (what will go out with
+ 4.3, modulo any bugs fixed during the beta period). It is the
+ 4.2 ctags with recognition of yacc and lex tags added.
+
+ See also a 1984 version of ctags (no copyright) posted to net.sources:
+ <http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d>
+ Version of etags.c in emacs-16.56 duplicates comment typos.
+
+ Accordingly, in Feb 2007 we added a 1984 copyright for the
+ University of California and a revised BSD license. The terms of
+ this require that the full license details be available in binary
+ distributions - hence the file etc/ETAGS.README. The fact that the
+ --version output just says "Copyright <year> FSF" is apparently OK
+ from a legal point of view.
lib-src/getopt1.c, getopt_int.h
- these are from the GNU C library. Leave the copyrights alone.
the concept.
rms: "My understanding is that game rules as such are not copyrightable."
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-01/msg00960.html>
+ rms: Legal advice is that we are ok and need not worry about this.
lispref/doclicense.texi
man/doclicense.texi
lisp/net/tramp.el
- there are also copyrights in the body of the file. Update these too.
+
lwlib/
rms (2007/02/17): "lwlib is not assigned to the FSF; we don't consider
it part of Emacs. [...] Therefore non-FSF copyrights are ok in lwlib."
-msdos/is_exec.c, sigaction.c
- - these files are copyright DJ Delorie. Leave the copyrights alone.
- Leave the Eli Zaretskii copyright in is_exec.c alone. See the
- msdos/README file for the legal history of these files.
+NB don't change the GPL version used for lwlib .c and .h files (see
+below).
+
+FSF copyrights should only appear in files which have undergone
+non-trivial cumulative changes from the original versions in the Lucid
+Widget Library. NB this means that if you make non-trivial changes to
+a file with no FSF copyright, you should add one. Also, if changes are
+reverted to the extent that a file becomes basically the same as the
+original version, the FSF copyright should be removed.
+
+In my (rgm) opinion, as of Feb 2007, all the non-trivial files differ
+significantly from the original versions, with the exception of
+lwlib-Xm.h. Most of the changes that were made to this file have
+subsequently been reverted. Therefore I removed the FSF copyright from
+this file (which is arguably too trivial to merit a notice anyway). I
+added FSF copyright to the following files which did not have them
+already: Makefile.in, lwlib-Xaw.c, lwlib-int.h (borderline),
+lwlib-utils.c (borderline), lwlib.c, lwlib.h.
+
+Copyright years before the advent of public CVS in 2001 were those
+when I judged (from the CVS logs) that non-trivial amounts of change
+had taken place. I also adjusted the existing FSF years in xlwmenu.c,
+xlwmenu.h, and xlwmenuP.h on the same basis.
+
+Note that until Feb 2007, the following files in lwlib were lacking
+notices: lwlib-int.h, lwlib.h, lwlib-Xaw.h, lwlib-Xlw.h, lwlib-utils.h
+
+The following files did not list a Lucid copyright: xlwmenu.h,
+xlwmenuP.h.
+
+To the best of our knowledge, all the code files in lwlib were
+originally part of the Lucid Widget Library, even if they did not say
+so explicitly. For example, they were all present in Lucid Emacs 19.1
+in 1992. The exceptions are the two Xaw files, which did not appear
+till Lucid Emacs 19.9 in 1994. The file lwlib-Xaw.h is too trivial to
+merit a copyright notice, but would presumably have the same one as
+lwlib-Xaw.c. We have been unable to find a true standalone version of
+LWL, if there was such a thing, to check definitively.
+
+To clarify the situation, in Feb 2007 we added Lucid copyrights and
+GPL notices to those files lacking either that were non-trivial,
+namely: lwlib-int.h, lwlib.h, xlwmenu.h, xlwmenuP.h. This represents
+our best understanding of the legal status of these files. We also
+clarified the notices in Makefile.in, which was originally the
+Makefile auto-generated from Lucid's Imakefile.
+
+As of Feb 2007, the following files are considered too trivial for
+notices: lwlib-Xaw.h, lwlib-Xlw.h, lwlib-utils.h.
+
+The version of lwlib/ first installed in Emacs seems to be the same as
+that used in Lucid Emacs 19.8 (released 6-sep-93); except the two Xaw
+files, which did not appear till Athena support was added in Lucid
+Emacs 19.9. In Lucid Emacs 19.1, all files were under GPLv1 or later,
+but by Lucid Emacs 19.8, lwlib.c and xlwmenu.c had been switched to v2
+or later. These are the versions that were first installed in Emacs.
+So in GNU Emacs, these two files have been under v2 or later since
+1994.
+
+It seems that it was the intention of Lucid to use v1 or later
+(excepting the two files mentioned previously); so this is the license
+we have used when adding notices to code that did not have notices
+originally. Although we have the legal right to switch to v2 or later,
+rms prefers that we do not do so.
+
+
+man/*.texi - All manuals should be under GFDL, and should include a
+copy of it, so that they can be distributed separately. faq.texi has
+a different license, for some reason no-one can remember.
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-04/msg00583.html
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-04/msg00618.html
+
+
+msdos/is_exec.c, sigaction.c - these files are copyright DJ Delorie.
+Leave the copyrights alone. Leave the Eli Zaretskii copyright in
+is_exec.c alone. See the msdos/README file for the legal history of
+these files.
+
+
+oldXMenu/
+ Keep the "copyright.h" method used by X11, rather than moving the
+ licenses into the files. Note that the original X10.h did not use
+ copyright.h, but had an explicit notice, which we retain.
+
+If you make non-trivial changes to a file which does not have an FSF
+notice, add one and a GPL notice (as per Activate.c). If changes to a
+file are reverted such that it becomes essentially the same as the
+original X11 version, remove the FSF notice and GPL.
+
+Only the files which differ significantly from the original X11
+versions should have FSF copyright and GPL notices. At time of writing
+(Feb 2007), this is: Activate.c, Create.c, Internal.c. I (rgm)
+established this by diff'ing the current files against those in X11R1,
+and when I found significant differences looking in the ChangeLog for
+the years they originated (the CVS logs are truncated before 1999). I
+therefore removed the FSF notices (added in 200x) from the other
+files. There are some borderline cases IMO: AddSel.c, InsSel.c,
+XMakeAssoc.c, XMenu.h. For these I erred on the side of NOT adding FSF
+notices.
+
+With regards to whether the files we have changed should have GPL
+added or not, rms says (2007-02-25, "oldXmenu issues"):
+
+ It does not make much difference, because oldXmenu is obsolete
+ except for use in Emacs (and it is not normally used in Emacs any
+ more either).
+
+ So, to make things simple, please put our changes under the GPL.
+
+insque.c had no copyright notice until 2005. The version of insque.c
+added to Emacs 1992-01-27 is essentially the same as insremque.c added
+to glic three days later by Roland McGrath, with an FSF copyright and
+GPL, but no ChangeLog entry:
+<http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/libc/misc/insremque.c?\
+rev=1.1&cvsroot=glibc>
+To the best of his recollection, McGrath (who has a copyright
+assignment) was the author of this file (email from roland at frob.com
+to rms, 2007-02-23, "Where did insque.c come from?"). The FSF
+copyright and GPL in this file are therefore correct as far as we
+understand it.
+
+Imakefile had no legal info in Feb 2007, but was obviously based on
+the X11 version (which also had no explicit legal info). As it was
+unused, I removed it. It would have the same MIT copyright as
+Makefile.in does now.
+
src/gmalloc.c
- contains numerous copyrights from the GNU C library. Leave them alone.
- see comments below. These files are OK to be released with Emacs
22, but we may want to revisit them afterwards.
-[src/unexhp9k800.c - removed 2007/1/27]
-[src/m/sr2k.h - removed 2007/1/27]
- - First file removed due to legal uncertainties; second file removed
- due to dependency on first. Note that src/m/hp800.h is still needed on
- hp800 arch.
- NB we would like to re-add this file if we can. Please let us know
- if you can clarify its legal status.
-
** Some notes on resolved issues, for historical information only
+etc/TERMS
+rms: "surely written either by me or by ESR. (If you can figure out
+which year, I can probably tell you which.) Either way, we have papers
+for it." It was present in Emacs-16.56 (15-jul-85). rms: "Then I
+conclude it was written by me."
+
+etc/ulimit.hack
+ Very obsolete file removed March 2007. Doesn't say who the author
+is, but web-search suggests Karl Kleinpaste, who has no Emacs
+assignment. Trivial anyway.
+http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.shell/browse_thread/thread/bf3df496994\
+9f1df/7e5922c67b3a98fb
+http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.questions/msg/cc7e49cacfd1ccb4
+ (original 1987 source)
+
lisp/term/README
- had no copyright notice till Feb 2007. ChangeLog.3 suggests it was
written by Eric Raymond. When asked by rms on 14 Feb 2007 he said:
Accordingly, FSF copyright was added.
+src/unexhp9k800.c (and dependent src/m/sr2k.h)
+ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00138.html
+ - briefly removed due to legal uncertainly Jan-Mar 2007. The
+ relevant assignment is under "hp9k800" in copyright.list. File was
+ written by John V. Morris at HP, and disclaimed by the author and
+ HP. So this file is public domain.
+
+
+K Rodgers changes
+ It was pointed out that K Rodgers only had assigments for VC and
+ ps-print, but had changed several other files. We tried to contact
+ him for a general assignment, but he proved uncommunicative (despite
+ initially indicating to rms he would sign an assignment). As a result, his
+ changes were removed and/or rewritten independently. For details, see
+ threads:
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-04/msg00225.html
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-04/msg00257.html
+
+ But then an assignment arrived before the release of Emacs 22:
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-04/msg01427.html
+
+
+lisp/progmodes/python.el
+Dave Love alerted us to a potential legal problem:
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-pretest-bug/2007-04/msg00459.html
+
+On consultation with a lawyer, we found there was no problem:
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-05/msg00466.html
+
** Issues that are "fixed" for the release of Emacs 22, but we may
wish to revisit later in more detail
admin/check-doc-strings
File says it's in the public domain, but that might not make it so.
+etc/BABYL
+ File written long ago by authors with no assignment. Keep them
+ without notices for now, try and contact authors if possible. Be
+ ready to remove these files if the authors ever object.
+etc/ms-kermit
etc/e/eterm-color.ti
src/acldef.h, chpdef.h, ndir.h
On legal advice from Matt Norwood, the following comment was added
- to these files in Feb 2007:
+ to these files in Feb/Mar 2007:
The code here is forced by the interface, and is not subject to
copyright, constituting the only possible expression of the
and possibly add a list of all authors who have changed these files.
(details in email from Matt Norwood to rms, 2007/02/03).
+etc/ms-7bkermit
+ Says it was written by Andy Lowry and Joel Spolsky. No entry for
+either in copyright.list. NB this file is not "constrained" like
+ms-kermit (rms: "We know it isn't. A comment at the front says it has
+other bindings which might be handy."). File removed March 2007.
+Re-add if clear up status at some point.
+
+etc/Xkeymap.txt
+ No info on author. File removed March 2007. rms: "It says it is
+RLK's way of remapping his keyboard, so it is not constrained. I think
+it was written by RLK. Let's delete it; if we contact RLK again, we
+can put it back." Actually, RLK == Robert Krawitz has an Emacs
+assignment. So this could be restored if it is still useful, but Jan Djärv
+says it is obsolete:
+<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-03/msg00673.html>
src/m/mips4.h, news-risc.h, pmax.h
src/s/aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, irix4-0.h, irix5-0.h,
noted in this file.
-etc/BABYL
- File says it was written in 1983 by Eugene Ciccarelli, who has no
- assignment. RMS: "The lawyer said we can keep BABYL."
-
-
REMOVED etc/gnu.xpm, nt/icons/emacs21.ico, nt/icons/sink.ico
- Restore if find legal info. emacs21.ico is not due to Davenport.
- Voelker could not immediately recall anything, but will check and
- let us know if he finds anything.
-
-
-REMOVED etc/orgcard.tex, orgcard.ps
- Re-add these files if an assignment is received from Rooke.
+ Geoff Voelker checked but could not find a record of where it came
+ from.
etc/images
contact image authors in regards to future switch to v3.
-REMOVED src/unexhp9k800.c
- - we would like to re-add this file if possible. Please let us know
- if you can clarify its legal status.
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00138.html
-
-
-*** These are copyright issues still to be addressed:
-
-NB apart from switching the TUTORIALs to GPL, I think there is nothing
-here that anyone can work on without further input from rms.
-
-
-Maybe some relevant comments here?
-<http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_thread/thread/123547ea95437a1f>
-
-
-etc/gnus-logo.eps, gnus-booklet.ps, gnus-refcard.ps
- just to be safe, papers are on the way for the "Gnus logo", even
- though it is very similar to the already-assigned "Emacs logo".
-
-
-etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one
-
-
etc/TUTORIAL* (translations)
switch to GPL (see english TUTORIAL)
rms: "We can leave the TUTORIAL translations alone until their
previous version.
Done: TUTORIAL.eo
-[waiting for legal advice]
-lib-src/etags.c
- - was it ok to use Ken Arnold's code as a basis?
- 1984 version of ctags, with no copyright, posted to net.sources:
- http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d)
- version of etags.c in emacs-16.56 seems to be derived from this
- (duplicate typos in comments).
+*** These are copyright issues still to be addressed:
-[waiting for legal advice on lwlib/*]
-lwlib/lwlib-Xaw.c
- copyright Chuck Thompson; but under GPL, so OK?
+None known.
-lwlib/lwlib-Xlw.c, lwlib-Xm.c, lwlib-Xm.h, xlwmenu.c
- copyright lucid and FSF, but under GPL, so OK?
- FSF copyrights were added in 200x, was that right?
-lwlib/lwlib-int.h, lwlib.h, lwlib-Xaw.h, lwlib-Xlw.h, lwlib-utils.h
- no copyright. last three trivial?
- suspect these must have been part of the "Lucid Widget Library",
- which is under GPL. Can't find an original version of this to check.
+** NOTES ON RELICENSING TO GPL3
-lwlib/Makefile.in
- "some parts" copyright Lucid, no license
+The EMACS_22_BASE branch was changed to GPLv3 (or later) 2007/07/25.
-lwlib/lwlib-utils.c, lwlib.c
- copyright Lucid, Inc; but under GPL, so OK?
+Some notes:
+(see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-07/msg01431.html)
-lwlib/xlwmenu.h, xlwmenuP.h
- part of 'Lucid Widget Library', but only FSF copyright (when files
- were first checked into RCS, there were no copyrights). Was it right
- to add FSF copyright?
- should we add a 1992 Lucid copyright?
+1. There are some files in Emacs CVS which are not part of Emacs (eg
+those included from Gnulib). These are all copyright FSF and (at time
+of writing) GPL >= 2. rms says may as well leave the licenses of these
+alone (may import them from Gnulib again). These are:
-lwlib/*
- should we:
- 1) ensure all files that were originally in the "Lucid Widget
- Library" have 1992 Lucid copyright?
- 2) add or remove FSF copyrights to any files we have made non-trivial
- changes to since 1992?
+ Gnulib:
+ src/getloadavg.c
+ src/gmalloc.c
+ src/md5.c
+ src/md5.h
+ src/mktime.c
+ src/strftime.c
+ src/termcap.c
+ src/tparam.c
+ Others:
+ config.guess
+ config.sub
+ lispintro/missing
+ man/texinfo.tex
-[waiting for legal advice]
-oldXMenu/
- - should there be any FSF copyrights at all in here? Some were added
- in 2005, without licence notices. Was this right?
- Eg don't think copyright.h should have FSF copyright!
- Should add copyright details for X11R1 to the README file. (see
- copyright.h). I suggest we remove copyright.h and add the notices
- directly into the files.
+Note _not_ included in the above are src/regex.{c,h} (rms: "That
+forked version is only in Emacs, so definitely relicense that."), and
+oldXMenu/insque.c (rms: "We wrote that specifically for Emacs, so
+definitely relicense that.").
+
+2. The files that are copyright FSF and AIST, or AIST alone, should be
+and were updated, ditto the oldXMenu files with FSF copyright, and
+msdos/is_exec.c and sigaction.c.
+
+3. lwlib/
+
+Files originally in Lucid Widget Library were left alone (excludes
+ChangeLog, etc), ie remain under GPL v1 or later, or v2 or later.
+(rms: "We may as well leave this alone, since we are never going to
+change it much.")
+4. There are some files where the FSF holds no copyright. These were
+left alone:
-The general issue is, as with some of the Lucid code in lwlib, suppose
-file foo.c is Copyright (C) 2000 John Smith, and released under the
-GPL. We check it into Emacs CVS and make non-trivial changes to it.
-Should we add a FSF copyright or not? Can we add such a notice as soon
-as we check it check it in to CVS?
+ leim/MISC-DIC/CTLau-b5.html >= v2
+ leim/MISC-DIC/CTLau.html >= v2
+ (above included in lisp/international/titdic-cnv.el)
+ leim/MISC-DIC/pinyin.map >= v1
+ leim/MISC-DIC/ziranma.cin >= v1
+ leim/SKK-DIC/SKK-JISYO.L >= v2
+ leim/SKK-DIC/README >= v2
+ leim/ja-dic/ja-dic.el >= v2
+5. At time of writing, some non-Emacs icons included from Gnome remain
+under GPLv2 (no "or later"). See:
-[waiting for legal advice]
-oldXMenu/Makefile.in, Makefile, Imakefile, descrip.mms, insque.c
- - issues described in mail to rms, 2006/12/17.
-rms: "I have asked for lawyer's advice about these."
+ etc/images/gnus/README
+ etc/images/mail/README
+ etc/images/README
+ nt/icons/README
\f
This file is part of GNU Emacs.
GNU Emacs is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
-the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
+the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
any later version.
GNU Emacs is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,