From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: MON KEY Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: persistent lisp objects Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:15:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1254615352 22438 80.91.229.12 (4 Oct 2009 00:15:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 04 02:15:45 2009 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 1MuElN-0005pA-5B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:15:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52604 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MuElM-0008DO-8O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:15:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MuElH-0008D2-0J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:15:39 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MuElB-0008By-IT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:15:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56267 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MuElB-0008Bv-Cc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:15:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f177.google.com ([209.85.211.177]:42931) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MuEl7-0000YR-0L; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:15:29 -0400 Original-Received: by ywh7 with SMTP id 7so2163787ywh.24 for ; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:15:27 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.150.172.42 with SMTP id u42mr7054149ybe.349.1254615327560; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:15:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5e97315918e3ea99 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:115888 Archived-At: On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > The copyright on compiler output follows the copyright on the input > that was compiled. In other words, the copyright holder of the input > also has the copyright on the output. So, if the output produced of the compiler originates by a method dispatched on a subclassed object it would be under GPL? ,---- | Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL | affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class. `----(URL `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang') What of cases where one or more methods so specialized act in concert to snarf data from some other source(s) where these sources are extraneous to the local handlers - e.g. the GPL'd objects/methods? data -> object -> method -> compiled-output If the compiled output so produced is a derivative produced under the guise of the GPL would this imply that that compiled output is GPL'd independent of pre-existing licenses which might otherwise govern that of the inputs originator(s)? IOW, what of a gaggle of sub-classed eieio objects with methods defined to snarf various third-party sources binding said snarfage to various instances each of which are in turn directed to spit out portions therof on a per symbol basis to compiled files. In the aggregate these individually snarfed and subsequently compiled symbolic components may well represent thousands of seperate instances of copywritten/licensed material. Under such a regime would it be reasonable for one to claim that as each symbolic component could only have resulted of a method specialized on some particular eieio sublcass that therefor this compiled output falls under the GPL? Would it not be true that were one to investigate the compiled content of a particular component - being merely a component of a whole compiled at the direction of the lisp environment - that of itself these compiled contents being otherwise divorced of their originating context would present as essentially meaningless to other than the algorithmic environment producing the component? By passing aggregate data through an objects methods on the way to compilation the individual symbolic data so compiled becomes GPL'd? > is a translation of some code, the copyright goes with the code that > was translated. Otherwise I suppose it belongs to whoever decided to > produce it. Cool... I think. ,---- | Some templates make calls into Javascript functions. Since Javascript is often | non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. Because the templates will be combined | with user data, it's possible that template+user data+Javascript would be | considered one work under copyright law. A line needs to be drawn between the | Javascript (copylefted), and the user code (usually under incompatible terms). `----(URL `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS') > > The Bison case is different and not relevant here. OK. Thank you for clarifying. s_P