Re: Packages, release notes, etc

[<tomas@tuxteam.de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:09:07PM +0200, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> 
> >> With respect to license, I think it is not even possible for an Emacs
> >> package to have a license different than GPL version 3 or later.
> >
> > Not exactly: the license can be different from GPLv3+, but it should
> > be compatible with GPLv3+, indeed.
> 
> But what's the purpose of the copyleft when I can release a derived work
> basing on GPL code under a GPL-compatible license which has no copyleft
> anymore, e.g., Apache License, Version 2.0?

Now I get it: you say that writing Emacs Lisp code is automatically a
"derived work" of Emacs. Hm. I don't know what the general position
on that is. Is a program written in Perl a derived work of Perl?

Most certainly a grey area, that's why some packages (e.g. GCC and its
runtime companion library) go to some lengths to clarify those points
(in the case of GCC, a C program is explicitly not considered derived
work, although it includes headers and caters to interfaces). But if
you think of the recent spat between Oracle and Google wrt copyright
violation by using some Java interfaces... it seems that the lawyers
themselves don't know a priori how the judges are going to decide on
that.

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlXyZh4ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbpawCfb5YGvqcp5JIRjLUQy7M/NGao
o6QAniLDAvAY7EYHQBdOjAO2q40CMPca
=1sE3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----