[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ELPA] New package: xr

From: Stephen Berman
Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: xr
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 11:06:52 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 09:18:33 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
>> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 22:50:59 -0500
>> > The point is when someone contributes changes to Emacs which consist
>> > of a separate module -- so that it isn't clearly "a change to Emacs"
>> > -- we should ask per to affirm explicitly that it _is_ a change to
>> > Emacs, and therefore his assignment covers it.
>> In the past we've considered explicit requests to contribute the package
>> to Emacs or GNU ELPA as being such a statement.
> And if that is not enough for some reason, then what exactly should
> the contributor of a package say, and where, to express such a
> statement?

Would it suffice (in addition to a copyright assignment, of course) if
the files in GNU ELPA contain this sentence?

  This file is part of GNU Emacs.

Currently, some do but many don't.

> Also, there are packages distributed with Emacs which can be
> considered not "clearly" a change to Emacs -- should the same policy
> be used for them?  E.g., Gnus or Org or ERC -- they are add-ons that
> have no direct effect on the Emacs core.

I think all (or at least all Lisp) files in those packages do contain
the above sentence, though not all files in the emacs source tree do

Steve Berman

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]