From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: E-LISP licensing question Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:47:57 +0900 Message-ID: <877ieuec9e.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <47F3A7C6.5000408@cmedresearch.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208581210 17816 80.91.229.12 (19 Apr 2008 05:00:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:00:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Geoffrey Teale , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 19 07:00:45 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jn3uk-0005QB-4W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:38:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jn3u5-0000dl-6e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:38:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jn3u1-0000dg-Ew for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:38:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jn3tw-0000dB-QQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:38:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jn3tw-0000d8-L8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:38:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jn3tp-0004f4-MV; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:38:01 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF591535AC; Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:37:48 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B59BF1A29F3; Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:47:57 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" 2785829fe37c XEmacs Lucid X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:95430 Archived-At: Glenn Morris writes: > Geoffrey Teale wrote: > > > If I write some emacs lisp code does the way emacs deals with that code > > at runtime mean that the code must always be under the GPL? No. Not if it simply uses facilities that are available in some form in pretty much any Lisp. If it touches an Emacs buffer or other facilities that are available only in a GPL format linked into Emacs, see below. > This GPL FAQ seems very relevant, if we consider Emacs as an > interpreter for the Emacs Lisp programming language: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL > > I think it's clear that you don't need to license under the GPL > specifically. But you may need to use a GPL-compatible license. The FAQ's answer is bizarre. Under copyright law, the only time you ever are legally bound by the GPL is when the program is a derivative of a GPLed work. But that requirement is *not* "GPL-compatible", it is "the terms of the GPL." IANAL, but that doesn't require a lot of legal knowledge to say. I don't trust that answer at all. > If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, > does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be > under GPL-compatible licenses? > > Trying to interpret the answer to that FAQ, it would seem that if you > just write some "pure" Emacs-lisp, you can use whatever license you > like. Afraid not. The Lisp engine is one thing, but nobody writes programs that invoke only bytecode interpreter primitives. Good luck writing a useful Emacs Lisp program that invokes no functions defined in ./lisp. So I think it's unquestionable that an Emacs Lisp program should be considered guilty of linkage to GPLed code until proven innocent. The only out would be if you could argue that this isn't intended to be linked *specifically* to Emacs, which would kinda need the possibility of running it on a non-GPL Lisp system.