From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs RPC Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:26:47 -0700 Message-ID: <4DB48787.4000909@gmail.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigF8CE8FF2DA412406C75A07C9" X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1303676825 15296 80.91.229.12 (24 Apr 2011 20:27:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:27:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "T.V. Raman" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 24 22:27:00 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QE5tU-0003SY-CT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:27:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46678 helo=lists2.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QE5tT-0003np-RA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:26:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43603) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QE5tQ-0003nj-Of for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:26:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QE5tP-0004E8-Kh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:26:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:60545) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QE5tO-0004Da-BP; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:26:54 -0400 Original-Received: by pxi2 with SMTP id 2so1564079pxi.38 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:26:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; bh=FVW1dHVGQBQ6Ix0adiWNS4dSAUPzz1torzG1FGWKwbo=; b=sZ3Qm+JhSrH4bQxE69ve0/yLb5R5D6TtdNjnV4qwsv4LMnBwfqxRhWCGpo6nnAe+jm MfGbgFyxdZm5OA9Sd6KlVtVpAZ5bqqMX0aDd8wpzTfXsjS0o2DCLuo1+YKXTVgFt8x8w jjzIUJgRY0fX3gkqpuHu/HNMqmZmMiHxFFaF0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; b=cbGBZyU8TkhN0zfTIFscpr9Lpg2GSoXfvLkZrG5S0urW5QuFiODYP3YX+2l2RSx1fr kHchP7lgyq+7XAwC1cgkOX7In00jgiL4qYXzJXpREDEqn9GxlmPFT0C1uG5QapivLnSc Aq9XFeRWBueFQwa5bLcUjSQNMaOXwPF1GB98s= Original-Received: by 10.143.154.36 with SMTP id g36mr2001364wfo.278.1303676813128; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from edith.local (c-67-183-23-114.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [67.183.23.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z10sm6829889wfj.12.2011.04.24.13.26.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.212.179 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:138688 Archived-At: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigF8CE8FF2DA412406C75A07C9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 4/24/11 1:04 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > If we implement this, its documentation should inform users that > intimate communication between Emacs and other code might imply that > they are one program and that the the other program must be covered by > GPLv3. I realize it's difficult to ask this question without expecting to spark controversy is a bit like shooting an Archduke in the Balkans without expecting war, but: Doesn't the "derivative work" boundary end at the IPC level? If I have a GPLv3ed web server, clients don't become bound by the GPLv3. If I have a GPLv3 web *service* that provides services over SOAP (a form of RPC), users of that web service are not automatically bound by the GPLv3 --- that's why we have the AGPL, after all. Linux programs aren't bound by that kernel's GPLv2 license, nor are programs that interact with the GPLv3d Samba. So, why would it be the case that clients of some Emacs RPC become bound by the GPL? I realize that a degree of "intimacy" can bring a system over the license event horizon, but it's not clear to me that there's any bright line we know we've crossed. Like an astrophysical event horizon, it seems like you can only know you've crossed it after you've tried to escape and failed. On a more practical basis, some programs, I imagine, use emacsclient's eval feature to run elisp today. Is every such user today bound the GPLv3= ? --------------enigF8CE8FF2DA412406C75A07C9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk20h4kACgkQ17c2LVA10Vv9VwCg5PEJsQroWhKlv+Q/tvya4JJD JpwAn0htXGbEXnCqH9qIqe23Hg6+pCjG =hQh5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigF8CE8FF2DA412406C75A07C9--