E-LISP licensing question

E-LISP licensing question

[Geoffrey Teale]

Hi guys,

Can anyone here give me a clear answer to this question:

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?

Or to put it another way...

Does doing (require 'foo.el) link the code into emacs in such a way that 
foo.el must be licensed under the GPL.


--
Regards,
Geoff Teale

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Geoffrey Teale wrote:
> Does doing (require 'foo.el) link the code into emacs in such a way that 
> foo.el must be licensed under the GPL.


As I understand it:

- yes, if you release the code or use the code in public.
- no, if you keep it private and let no one else use it.

But this can be expressed better and more accurate and have been done so 
in GPL ...

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Glenn Morris]

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?
>
> Or to put it another way...
>
> Does doing (require 'foo.el) link the code into emacs in such a way that 
> foo.el must be licensed under the GPL.

I don't really know, but this seems like an important question that
should have a clear answer.

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

   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?

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.

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. But if you use any GPL'd elisp libraries, then you need to use a
GPL-compatible license. This raises the question of what we consider
part of the Emacs lisp "language", and what we consider an "extension"
provided by a "library". Perhaps anything not dumped with Emacs is a
"library"? Which means that the requirements could change if a package
starts to be dumped with Emacs...

Can someone give a clear answer to this question?

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

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.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Stefan Monnier]

>> 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?
>> 
>> Or to put it another way...
>> 
>> Does doing (require 'foo.el) link the code into emacs in such a way that 
>> foo.el must be licensed under the GPL.

> I don't really know, but this seems like an important question that
> should have a clear answer.

> 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

>    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?

> 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.

> 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. But if you use any GPL'd elisp libraries, then you need to use a
> GPL-compatible license. This raises the question of what we consider
> part of the Emacs lisp "language", and what we consider an "extension"
> provided by a "library". Perhaps anything not dumped with Emacs is a
> "library"? Which means that the requirements could change if a package
> starts to be dumped with Emacs...

> Can someone give a clear answer to this question?

AFAIK, you can't write usable Elisp code which isn't one way or another
linked to GPL'd code.  The only way to do that would be to write the
code in basically the intersection of Elisp and CommonLisp, which
precludes operating on buffers, files, etc...

Of course that's only true so long as the only Elisp implementations are
all GPL'd.


        Stefan

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Richard Stallman]

I asked people (including a lawyer) to work on some advice about this.
Meanwhile, I suggest that people refrain from arguing about it here
without the benefit of lawyers.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> I asked people (including a lawyer) to work on some advice about this.

Any progress?

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Richard M Stallman]

No response yet.  I will ping them.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Glenn Morris]

Richard M Stallman wrote:

> No response yet.  I will ping them.

Anything?

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Rachel Agasan]

Richard M Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org> writes:

> 
> No response yet.  I will ping them.
> 
> 


I am also looking for further clarification on this.  I don't even know if,
for example, init.el must be GPLed if it (require '---) a GPLed library then
redefines settings in that library.*

Worse yet: what if some of those libraries are GPLv2 and the others are GPLv3?


*Assuming you want to post your config publicly for reference.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Stefan Monnier]

> I am also looking for further clarification on this.  I don't even know if,
> for example, init.el must be GPLed if it (require '---) a GPLed library then
> redefines settings in that library.*

As long as you don't distribute your init.el, you don't have to worry
about any of those problems.


        Stefan

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Glenn Morris]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> I am also looking for further clarification on this.  I don't even know if,
>> for example, init.el must be GPLed if it (require '---) a GPLed library then
>> redefines settings in that library.*
>
> As long as you don't distribute your init.el, you don't have to worry
> about any of those problems.

You missed the "*":

   *Assuming you want to post your config publicly for reference.

Surely this question, which seems like a reasonable thing to ask, should
have an actual answer by now, 5 years on?

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Xue Fuqiao]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> wrote:
> Surely this question, which seems like a reasonable thing to ask, should
> have an actual answer by now, 5 years on?

+1

Even better if the answer is put on GPL-FAQ
(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html).

--
Best regards, Xue Fuqiao.
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Richard Stallman]

        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

    Worse yet: what if some of those libraries are GPLv2 and the others are GPLv3?

If a library is GPLv2-or-later that includes GPLv3.
If a library is under GPLv2 only, we should regard it as dead
and write a replacement.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 9 July 2013 12:33, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> If a library is GPLv2-or-later that includes GPLv3.
> If a library is under GPLv2 only, we should regard it as dead
> and write a replacement.

I was just quoted this out of context in order to highlight how crazy
and extreme you are.

Of course you don't mean that all the GPL code out there under version
2 should be regarded as dead. You mean only for the purposes of
incorporating that code into Emacs, correct?

- Jordi G. H.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Richard Stallman]

        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

    > If a library is GPLv2-or-later that includes GPLv3.
    > If a library is under GPLv2 only, we should regard it as dead
    > and write a replacement.

    Of course you don't mean that all the GPL code out there under version
    2 should be regarded as dead. You mean only for the purposes of
    incorporating that code into Emacs, correct?

Yes.   We were discussing Emacs Lisp libraries.
You will notice that I said "If a library..."

There are people who want to make me look bad, and don't mind if the
means are dishonest.  Perhaps because Microsoft pays them -- it was
caught doing this a couple of months ago -- or perhaps they get their
kicks from mistreating people.

Whoever quoted it out of context might be one of them, in which
case you should put him down as someone to ignore.  However, that person
might be honest and have been misled by others.  If so, you could perhaps
help him see what is happening and stop it.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Nicolas Richard]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: 
> Yes.   We were discussing Emacs Lisp libraries.  You will notice 
> that I said "If a library..." 
> 
> There are people who want to make me look bad, and don't mind if 
> the means are dishonest.  Perhaps because Microsoft pays them -- 
> it was caught doing this a couple of months ago -- or perhaps 
> they get their kicks from mistreating people. 
 
> Whoever quoted it out of context might be one of them, in which 
> case you should put him down as someone to ignore.  However, 
> that person might be honest and have been misled by others.  If 
> so, you could perhaps help him see what is happening and stop 
> it. 
 
Since I did the out-of-context-quote leading to this, let me 
please clarify this non-event briefly. This is what I said on IRC 
: 
 
> RMS said: "If a library is under GPLv2 only, we should regard it 
> as dead and write a replacement." Looks like a fun project.

I added nothing else on that subject except, on request, a reference
(Date and Message-ID).

Disappointing but there is no Microsoft involved : overinterpretation is
the devil here.

-- 
Nico.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Richard Stallman]

        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

I'm glad that no hostility was involved this time.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     Worse yet: what if some of those libraries are GPLv2 and the
>     others are GPLv3?
>
> If a library is GPLv2-or-later that includes GPLv3.
> If a library is under GPLv2 only, we should regard it as dead
> and write a replacement.

This isn't the real issue, and seems likely to just side-track us.

5 years ago, you said:

  I asked people (including a lawyer) to work on some advice about this.
  Meanwhile, I suggest that people refrain from arguing about it here
  without the benefit of lawyers.

Did you ever get an answer?
The question was:

    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?

    Or to put it another way...

    Does doing (require 'foo.el) link the code into emacs in such a way that
    foo.el must be licensed under the GPL.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Richard Stallman]

        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

      I asked people (including a lawyer) to work on some advice about this.
      Meanwhile, I suggest that people refrain from arguing about it here
      without the benefit of lawyers.

    Did you ever get an answer?

I don't think I did.  It was probably one of those things that got dropped
because there was something more important.

I asked a lawyer now.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

Re: E-LISP licensing question

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 09.07.2013 19:06, schrieb Glenn Morris:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>>      Worse yet: what if some of those libraries are GPLv2 and the
>>      others are GPLv3?
>>
>> If a library is GPLv2-or-later that includes GPLv3.
>> If a library is under GPLv2 only, we should regard it as dead
>> and write a replacement.
>
> This isn't the real issue, and seems likely to just side-track us.
>
> 5 years ago, you said:
>
>    I asked people (including a lawyer) to work on some advice about this.
>    Meanwhile, I suggest that people refrain from arguing about it here
>    without the benefit of lawyers.
>
> Did you ever get an answer?
> The question was:
>
>      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?
>
>      Or to put it another way...
>
>      Does doing (require 'foo.el) link the code into emacs in such a way that
>      foo.el must be licensed under the GPL.
>
>

Probably the answer is that simple, that it wasn't noticed when it came in.
Legal texts may only provide some assistance to clarify the cases, never meet all.

So legal resp. contractual stipulations need interpretation in the light of the purpose. Which is given with the four freedoms likewise.
Which already solves how to deal with possible contradictions here.

Best regards,

Andreas