Slightly changed copyright, new test release

Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Zoltan Hidvegi]

I've just made a new test release.  I hope that no changes will be
necessary for zsh-3.0.1.  This is not a final release because the copyright
notice is changed a bit and we need Paul's agreement for that.  The
3.0.1-test4 release can be downloaded as a patch for 3.0.0 from
ftp://ftp.cs.elte.hu/pub/zsh/testing/zsh-3.0.1-test4.diff.gz

The new copyright notice which appears on the top of each file is

 * Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without
 * license or royalty fees, to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
 * software and to distribute modified versions of this software for any
 * purpose, provided that the above copyright notice and the following
 * two paragraphs appear in all copies of this software.

The rest is unchanged.  The change is that the documentation is not
mentioned here and it is explicitely stated that it is allowed to
distribute modified versions of that program.  I always thought that the
old copyright notice allowed that as well but Richard Stallman think that
was not clear enough.

The texinfo documentation not contains the following conditions for
copying:


  Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of
  this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice
  are preserved on all copies.
  
  Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
  manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided also that the
  entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a
  permission notice identical to this one.
  
  Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual
  into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions.

The size/date of the new release:

    50588 Oct 18 22:35 zsh-3.0.1-test4.diff.gz

MD5SUM:

dd3fa4451bd45680389a18f4e54482ed  zsh-3.0.1-test4.diff.gz

Do not forget to touch stamp-h.in and configure after applying the patch.

This version should compile on all versions of OSF and HP-UX with or
without gcc.  Note however that sed in HP-UX 10.20 is broken so either use
GNU sed or the sed from an earlier HP-UX.

It should also compile on Crays.

The PUSHD_CYCLE patch is not included now because a simple shell function
was posted to the list which provides the same functionality.  Also I think
that the PUSHD_CYCLE patch needs some revision when PUSHD_IGNORE_DUPS is
not set.  If you think I forgot a patch tell me as soon as possible.

Zoltan

Re: Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Zoltan Hidvegi (hzoli@cs.elte.hu) wrote:
> The new copyright notice which appears on the top of each file is
[...]
> The rest is unchanged.  The change is that the documentation is not
> mentioned here and it is explicitely stated that it is allowed to
> distribute modified versions of that program.  I always thought that the
> old copyright notice allowed that as well but Richard Stallman think that
> was not clear enough.

Speaking of copyright, why isn't zsh under GPL?  I think it would be
better to have a standard license, rather than zsh-specific.

Is there a special reason why zsh shouldn't be under the GPL?

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Good pings come in small packets.

Re: Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Richard Coleman]

> > The rest is unchanged.  The change is that the documentation is not
> > mentioned here and it is explicitely stated that it is allowed to
> > distribute modified versions of that program.  I always thought that the
> > old copyright notice allowed that as well but Richard Stallman think that
> > was not clear enough.
> 
> Speaking of copyright, why isn't zsh under GPL?  I think it would be
> better to have a standard license, rather than zsh-specific.
> 
> Is there a special reason why zsh shouldn't be under the GPL?

Because Paul didn't want to use the GPL license.  The original license
didn't allow commercial usage.  When I became maintainer, I convinced
Paul to let me switch zsh to a BSD style copyright (and at the time, he
specifically didn't want to use GPL).  The current copyright is from an
older Tcl/Tk distribution.

Also, part of the zsh distribution is copyright by me, but I have agreed
to use whatever copyright that Paul wants to use on the rest of the
zsh distribution.

Personally, I think Richard Stallman is just being overly paranoid
about this.  I think the current copyright is fine.

rc

Re: Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Zoltan Hidvegi]

Richard Coleman wrote:
> Personally, I think Richard Stallman is just being overly paranoid
> about this.  I think the current copyright is fine.

Does this means that you oppose the change?  I also think that RMS is
paranoid but I think it does not hurt anyone if we make the copyright text
more clear.  If we ever want to integrate FSF copyrighted code to zsh we
have better chances with this change.  The origin of this change was the
color-ls patch.  Someone asked RMS for permission to include it into zsh.
RMS mailed me then that he finds zsh copyright too restrictive because it
does not allow distribution of modified versions (that was his
imterpretation).

Zoltan

Re: Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Richard Coleman]

> Richard Coleman wrote:
> > Personally, I think Richard Stallman is just being overly paranoid
> > about this.  I think the current copyright is fine.
> 
> Does this means that you oppose the change?  I also think that RMS is
> paranoid but I think it does not hurt anyone if we make the copyright text
> more clear.  If we ever want to integrate FSF copyrighted code to zsh we
> have better chances with this change.  The origin of this change was the
> color-ls patch.  Someone asked RMS for permission to include it into zsh.
> RMS mailed me then that he finds zsh copyright too restrictive because it
> does not allow distribution of modified versions (that was his
> imterpretation).

No, the new copyright doesn't bother me.  I would agree to using it on
the parts I have copyrighted.  But I still don't know if that allows us
to add code that is under the GPL.  I thought that would require the
rest of the code to be under GPL (which I'm generally against).  I like
the fact that the source code of zsh is available.  But if someone
wants to distribute zsh binaries without source code, that is fine with
me.  I hate forcing someone to distribute source code by using the GPL.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

rc

Re: Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Zoltan Hidvegi]

> No, the new copyright doesn't bother me.  I would agree to using it on
> the parts I have copyrighted.  But I still don't know if that allows us
> to add code that is under the GPL.  I thought that would require the
> rest of the code to be under GPL (which I'm generally against).  I like

In the case of the color-ls patch RMS would have allowed to include it in
zsh with the modified zsh copyright.  But it is not necessary if we
implement modules.  A contributed loadable module may have different
copyright from the main code.

Zoltan

Re: Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Richard Coleman (coleman@math.gatech.edu) wrote:
> rest of the code to be under GPL (which I'm generally against).  I like

What is the reason of this?  I cannot find anything so bad in the GPL
-- it actually seems to be quite similar to the current zsh license.

There was quite a lot of talk on XEmacs mailing list about Stallman
and his (alleged) paranoia, but it was mostly connected with assigning
the copyright to the FSF.  What is wrong with the GPL itself?

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Good pings come in small packets.

Re: Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Richard Coleman]

> Richard Coleman (coleman@math.gatech.edu) wrote:
> > rest of the code to be under GPL (which I'm generally against).  I like
> 
> What is the reason of this?  I cannot find anything so bad in the GPL
> -- it actually seems to be quite similar to the current zsh license.
> 
> There was quite a lot of talk on XEmacs mailing list about Stallman
> and his (alleged) paranoia, but it was mostly connected with assigning
> the copyright to the FSF.  What is wrong with the GPL itself?

There's nothing wrong with the GPL.  I just prefer a BSD style copyright.
It's just a matter of preference.

rc

Re: Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Paul Falstad]

Zoltan Hidvegi says:
| Subject: Slightly changed copyright, new test release
| I've just made a new test release.  I hope that no changes will be
| necessary for zsh-3.0.1.  This is not a final release because the copyright
| notice is changed a bit and we need Paul's agreement for that.  The
| 3.0.1-test4 release can be downloaded as a patch for 3.0.0 from
| ftp://ftp.cs.elte.hu/pub/zsh/testing/zsh-3.0.1-test4.diff.gz
| 
| The new copyright notice which appears on the top of each file is
| 
[...]
| The texinfo documentation not contains the following conditions for
| copying:
[...]

sounds good to me.


-- 
Paul Falstad, pjf@cts.com, 805-966-4935, http://www.ttinet.com/pjf/
    work: pf@software.com, 805-882-2470, http://www.software.com/

In Green Lane, Pa., pop. 442, both parties forgot to nominate anyone for
mayor, town council, or tax collector.  Nobody is running for anything.
Look for an economic miracle in Green Lane, Pa.
	-- National Review

Re: Slightly changed copyright, new test release

[Peter Stephenson]

Zoltan Hidvegi wrote:
> The PUSHD_CYCLE patch is not included now because a simple shell function
> was posted to the list which provides the same functionality.  Also I think
> that the PUSHD_CYCLE patch needs some revision when PUSHD_IGNORE_DUPS is
> not set.

meaning, the shell function provides NO_PUSHD_CYCLE.  From the second
sentence, I presume this is temporary, otherwise the function should
be supplied in the Functions directory with a note saying this is the
way to get the old behaviour.

> If you think I forgot a patch tell me as soon as possible.

My manual patch clarification of GLOB_ASSIGN and MAGIC_EQUAL_SUBST,
and the patch fixing the core dump with key bindings are still
missing.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@ifh.de>       Tel: +49 33762 77366
WWW:  http://www.ifh.de/~pws/       Fax: +49 33762 77413
Deutches Electronen-Synchrotron --- Institut fuer Hochenergiephysik Zeuthen
DESY-IfH, 15735 Zeuthen, Germany.