Toward a "modern" Emacs [LWN.net]

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 27, 2020 6:20 UTC (Sun) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
In reply to: Toward a "modern" Emacs by pizza
Parent article: Toward a "modern" Emacs

> I, as an *end user*, want the complete corresponding source code I was promised. That's it.

This is a gross misunderstanding of the GPL, and of copyright law generally. No promise was ever made to any end users, so there is nothing for them to demand in the first place.

Rather, a promise was made to the original copyright holders. While the GPL may have been intended to give rights to end users, that is not what it actually does, nor is it what Linus (at least) wanted out of the GPL anyway (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU). And this is fine. People can use the same license to very different ends. This is cold comfort when you're the end user trying to get the source that you just *know* the XYZ company is required to provide, and nobody on LKML cares, but it's their code. If they want to let people steal it, that's their choice. Perhaps it is an unwise choice, but a choice nonetheless.

> As the copyright holder for a couple of (mostly obsolete) chunks of the Linux kernel, I strongly disagree.

If you can find people infringing on those specific chunks, you are free to do as you see fit, in your role as the copyright holder for those chunks. But not in your role as an end user, because end users are not parties to the GPL.

to post comments

Toward a "modern" Emacs

Posted Sep 27, 2020 7:57 UTC (Sun) by dvdeug (guest, #10998) [Link]

> This is a gross misunderstanding of the GPL, and of copyright law generally. ... While the GPL may have been intended to give rights to end users, that is not what it actually does,

So, yeah, if you want what the GPL was intended to give you, it doesn't seem a gross misunderstanding of the GPL to expect that.

> No promise was ever made to any end users, so there is nothing for them to demand in the first place. ... People can use the same license to very different ends.

It seems you're making RMS's case for him. Above you say:

> You have the code, it is fully GPL-compliant, and (as a result) it's already licensed under the same terms as upstream.

But then you say that functionally it's licensed under very different terms, that functionally an end user has no right to expect creators of a derivative work to offer source code for the work. RMS wants Emacs, and by Emacs I mean the whole thing the FSF distributes in one tarball, to be free software with end users provided with source code for derivative works.

My problem with such a treatment of licenses is a free content provider; as an uploader of photographs to Commons, every time someone slaps the CC-BY-SA on their photo and then lets people use it as if it were public domain, it reduces the value of my CC-BY-SA on my photograph. If everyone is treating CC-BY-SA as being public domain, then I'm being unreasonable when I demand the works be treated as per the license. If one or two copyright owners of GPLed works get tetchy about distribution of their code against the licence, the rest of us are likely to be treated as unreasonable nuisances when complaining about license-infringing distribution; if many copyright holders so act, then normal (not pirates, not carefully conscientious) distributors will make an effort to follow the license.