Re: Fwd: How do I go about debugging my Elisp code?

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org> [2022-01-14 20:47]:
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> 
> >> I don't think that an emacs package is a modification of emacs itself
> >> or a derivative work.
> >
> > If you modify variable you are modifying Emacs.
> 
> So if I want to give some help-searching user the hint to reproduce an
> error with debug-on-error set to t, I should write my reply as given in
> the below?

I would assume that your minimal contributions to Emacs are under the
same license as Emacs and simply include it how it is in my code if I
wish, but then I would say it was authored by yourself. Then in case
of complaint from your side I could adapt it how you and me think it
is alright.

It is good to be practical. 

> I mean, according to your reasoning, I'm publishing a modification of
> emacs here.

Which is right. Though, see above.

> > If you create a function than such software modifies Emacs as function
> > did not exist in Emacs.  It creates new function.  Thus new function
> > is modification of Emacs itself.
> 
> IMHO, modification is usually meant as copying and adapting code.
> Setting a variable is more or less configuration.  An interesting aspect
> are advices which allow modifying existing functions without physically
> touching their source code.

Your code can be nothing else but setting variables. If your program
cannot run without main part named Emacs, than such modification
represent new work, and is thus modification of Emacs and has to carry
the license.

I am pointing to it for the exact same reason like you, just from
different angle. Many people are not aware of it. But as I said, small
parts of code on mailing list I would re-use if necessary in GNU GPL
package while giving credit to author until some complaint would come. 

> >> But I'm not sure if merely posting some basically private code
> >> somewhere on a private homepage or on some pastebin requires you to
> >> add a license notice.
> >
> > It does, otherwise it is considered incompatible to Emacs as it is
> > automatically proprietary.
> 
> Well, I'd say that's kind of a grey area.  Of course, elisp code that is
> published on the interwebs without specifying a compatible license
> cannot be subject for inclusion or linkage in my super-duper elisp
> package which I intend to publish on some package archive.  However, I
> wouldn't go so far to accuse someone posting his ~/.emacs or some other
> code snippets of license infringement.

Though yes, ~/.emacs published is code modifying Emacs and shall be
published under the free software license compatible with Emacs. 

That it is commonly not indicated does not make it less infringement.


Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/