longer, eg the text "GNU Emacs is free software...".
+Summary for the impatient:
+
+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.
+
+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
files that are not distributed in Emacs releases (for example, the
CVS, then it does not really matter about adding a copyright statement
to the generated file.
-However, here is a quote from Matt Norwood (Software Freedom Law
-Center) that suggests we should revise the above policy about trivial
-files:
-
- If FSF has a strong policy reason notices off of files it
- considers "trivial", this will take a lot more bookkeeping; it
- also runs the risk of these "trivial" files later growing into
- non-trivial files, and being in the tree without any record of
- authorship. All in all, I think it's a better policy to attach the
- notice and let future authors decide if something is trivial when
- they want to reuse it elsewhere.
- [...]
- In general, copyright law will step back and look at the overall "work"
- consisting of all the assembled components working together as a system;
- it will apply protection and permissions to this system, not to its
- subcomponents. If parts of it are recombined into another system, it
- will consider the protections and permissions for each of the source
- components only in order to assess the overall status of the work again.
- The assessment of whether a set of components is entitled to copyright
- protection is the degree to which they display "creativity": not as
- atomic units, but as parts of a system working in concert. Thus, several
- "trivial" components working together in some coherent system might be
- protectible.
-
-RMS feels, though, that in trivial files (eg etc/FTP), having a
-license notice looks odd. Matt Norwood has confirmed it is not
-_necessary_ to have licenses in such files, so we are sticking with
-the policy of no licenses in "trivial" files.
-
-NB consequently, if you add a lot of text to a small file, consider
-whether your changes have made the file worthy of a copyright notice,
-and if so, please add one.
+Legal advice says that we could, if we wished, put a license notice
+even in trivial files, because copyright law in general looks at the
+overall work as a whole. It is not _necessary_ to do so, and rms
+prefers that we do not. This means one needs to take care that trivial
+files do not grow and become non-trivial without having a license
+added. NB consequently, if you add a lot of text to a small file,
+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
All README (and other such text files) that are non-trivial should
contain copyright statements and GPL license notices, exactly as .el
-files do (see e.g. README in the top-level directory). (Before 2007,
+files do (see e.g. README in the top-level directory). Before 2007,
we used a simple, short statement permitting copying and modification
provided legal notices were retained. In Feb 2007 we switched to the
-standard GPL text, on legal advice.)
+standard GPL text, on legal advice. Some older text files in etc/
+should, however, keep their current licenses (see below for list).
For image files, the copyright and license details should be recorded
in a README file in each directory with images. (Legal advice says
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
- this file is copyright MIT, which is OK. Leave the copyright alone.
-admin/check-doc-strings
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
+ - 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.
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00324.html>
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.
-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.
+
+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."
+
+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."
-*** These are copyright issues that need not be fixed until after
- Emacs 22 is released (though if they can be fixed before, that is
- obviously good):
+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:
-Is it OK to just `cvs remove' a file for legal reasons, or is
-something more drastic needed? A removed file is still available from
-CVS, if suitable options are applied. (This CVS issue obviously does
-not affect a release).
- rms: will ask lawyer
+ I don't remember writing it, but it reads like my prose and I believe
+ I wrote the feature(s) it's describing. So I would have been the
+ likeliest person to write it.
+ Odds are that I did, but I'm not certain.
-Make sure that all files with non-standard copyrights or licenses are
-noted in this file.
+ 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.
-etc/BABYL
- File says it was written in 1983 by Eugene Ciccarelli, who has no
- assignment. RMS: "The lawyer said we can keep BABYL."
+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
-etc/images/icons/*
-nt/icons/emacs21.ico
-src/gnu.h
- Has Andrew Zhilin's 2005-11 assignment been correctly noted in
- copyright.list? Mail sent to fsf-records.
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-11/msg00349.html
+ But then an assignment arrived before the release of Emacs 22:
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-04/msg01427.html
-REMOVED etc/orgcard.tex, orgcard.ps
- Re-add these files if an assignment is received from Rooke.
+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
-etc/images
- Image files from GTK, Gnome are under GPLv2 (no "or later"?). RMS will
- contact image authors in regards to future switch to v3.
+
+** 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).
-
-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>
-
-
-All non-trivial README (and other such files) need copyright and
-license statements. Use GPL in most cases, rather than the short
-notices we have been using till now. NB but see above for some
-exceptions in etc/ that should stay unchanged.
-rms: "If a README file is under 60 lines long, using the long version
-[of the GPL notice] might be ugly. Please tell me if you encounter one
-that is under 60 lines."
-
- lisp/term/README (ChangeLog.3 suggests was written by Eric Raymond)
- borderline "trivial" cases
-
-
-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/emacs.csh, emacs.bash, DISTRIB
- does rms want GPL or simple license for these?
-
-
-etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one
-etc/e/eterm-color.ti - no copyright
- rms: "I think that is not copyrightable under the merger doctrine
- because the entries are all forced. At least that is the case in the
- US; I am not sure whether we can rely on that in general."
-
-
-etc/TUTORIAL*
- switch to GPL. Depending on how rms wants this done, this may
- require the translators.
-
-
-lib-src/etags.c - no 'k.* arnold' in copyright.list'
- rms: "That is ok, in principle. I used free code released by Ken
- Arnold as the starting point. However, it may be that we need to get
- and insert whatever his license was for his code."
-
- under GPL, so OK?
-
- - 1984 version of ctags, with no copyright, posted to net.sources:
- http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d
-
-
-lwlib/lwlib-Xaw.c
- copyright Chuck Thompson; but under GPL, so OK?
-
-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.
-
-lwlib/Makefile.in
- "some parts" copyright Lucid, no license
-
-lwlib/lwlib-utils.c, lwlib.c
- copyright Lucid, Inc; but under GPL, so OK?
-
-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?
-
-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?
-
-
-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.
-
-
-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?
-
-
-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/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,
isc2-2.h, netbsd.h, osf1.h, sol2-3.h, sunos4-0.h, usg5-4-2.h
- - all these (not obviously trivial) files are missing copyrights.
- rms: "I should talk about these with Matthew Norwood."
-The current legal advice seems to be that we should attach FSF
-copyright and GPL for the time being, then review post-release:
+ - all these (not obviously trivial) files were missing copyrights
+ till Feb 2007, when FSF copyright was added. Matt Norwood advised:
-Matt Norwood:
For now, I think the best policy is to assume that we do have
assignments from the authors (I recall many of these header files
as having been originally written by rms), and to attach an FSF
Emacs: small changes or suggestions to a work that are subsumed in
the main authors' copyright in the entire work.
-Details:
+Here is my (rgm) take on the details of the above files:
mips4.h
might be trivial? started trivial, been added to in tiny changes by
aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, netbsd.h, sunos4-0.h
started trivial, grown in tiny changes.
+netbsd.h:
+Roland McGrath said to rms (2007/02/17): "I don't really remember
+anything about it. If I put it in without other comment, then probably
+I wrote it myself."
+
+
+Someone might want to tweak the copyright years (for dates before
+2001) that I used in all these files.
+
+Note: erring on the side of caution, I also added notices to some
+files I thought might be considered non-trivial (if one includes
+comment) in s/:
+ aix4-1.h hiuxmpp.h hiuxwe2.h hpux10.h irix6-0.h irix6-5.h isc3-0.h
+ ptx4.h sol2.h sunos4-0.h
+
+(everything with > 30 non-blank lines, which at least is _some_ kind of
+system)
+
+
+*** These are copyright issues that need not be fixed until after
+ Emacs 22 is released (though if they can be fixed before, that is
+ obviously good):
+
+
+Is it OK to just `cvs remove' a file for legal reasons, or is
+something more drastic needed? A removed file is still available from
+CVS, if suitable options are applied. (This CVS issue obviously does
+not affect a release).
+ rms: will ask lawyer
+
+
+Make sure that all files with non-standard copyrights or licenses are
+noted in this file.
+
+
+REMOVED etc/gnu.xpm, nt/icons/emacs21.ico, nt/icons/sink.ico
+ - Restore if find legal info. emacs21.ico is not due to Davenport.
+ Geoff Voelker checked but could not find a record of where it came
+ from.
+
+
+etc/images
+ Image files from GTK, Gnome are under GPLv2 (no "or later"?). RMS will
+ contact image authors in regards to future switch to v3.
+
+
+etc/TUTORIAL* (translations)
+ switch to GPL (see english TUTORIAL)
+ rms: "We can leave the TUTORIAL translations alone until their
+ maintainers update them."
+ Can adapt short license text from end of GPL translations at:
+ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html
+ Only a few sentences around the license notice need changing from
+ previous version.
+Done: TUTORIAL.eo
+
+
+*** These are copyright issues still to be addressed:
+
+None known.
+
\f
This file is part of GNU Emacs.