bug#58196: Trivial update to ediprolog

[Stefan Monnier]

>> [ BTW, you've signed the copyright paperwork which transferred the
>>   copyright to the FSF, so you technically do not own the copyright to
>>   that file any more, so your upstream code's copyright line is
>>   incorrect.  ]
>
> The jurisdiction where I reside guarantees authors' rights as opposed to
> copyright.

Yes, they use different names, but they work pretty much in the same way.

> Certain rights I have as the sole author of ediprolog.el
> cannot be transferred,

The same for copyright law in North America.  They're just called
differently, but by and large they work the same.

> except by inheritance, even if I wanted to transfer them (§ 23
> Abs. 3 UrhG). The rights I have as the author of ediprolog.el include
> the right to decide whether and how to display that I am its author (§
> 20 Abs. 1 UrhG).
>
> In the master file of ediprolog.el, I am using the copyright notice as
> the usual way ("übliche Weise") in which authorship is indicated in
> code. This is to satisfy the conditions of § 12 UrhG to indicate me as
> the author of the code. Since I am the author, the notice it correct.

Fine, then it's not technically incorrect, but it's still inconvenient
for us and it's misleading when interpreted based on the meaning of
those words in some other jurisdictions.  In contrast, you also have

    ;; Author: Markus Triska <triska@metalevel.at>

in that file, which should be very clear to everyone and makes your
copyright line redundant (in addition to inconvenient for us and
misleading in some contexts).

> I have the rights I mentioned also without this notice, and therefore I
> accept changes you make to this notice if they are required to
> distribute ediprolog.el on ELPA. The master file I provide in the
> jurisdiction where I reside will retain the notice for the reason above.

If all authors of all GNU ELPA packages were to ask for special
treatment for their pet detail, I'd have given up on GNU ELPA
a long time ago.


        Stefan