Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary

[Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 2:03 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, moasenwood@zoho.eu
> Subject: Re: Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 16:54]:
> > I can make an proprietary emacs package without using any free
> > software.
>
> Of course you can make. We talk hypothetically. You can practically
> make it and in that case it is violation of GPL3+.

If you don't use any code released under the GPL, you will not be violating the GPL.
Using emacs does not stop you from calling some functionality released under a proprietary
license.

> > I just cannot use code released with a free software license.
>
> That I don't understand.

Suppose I write a major mode under the Code Project Open License or the NASA Open Source
Agreement (two terrible licenses) and include some code from org-mode.  You cannot do that
because that would be a violation of the GPL.  Otherwise, you can write your own code and
distribute it under the aforementioned proprietary licenses.  Then use emacs and include
the file implementing the major mode file.  There would be no violation.


> > > They cannot sell it, or in any way release to public as license does
> > > not allows it.
> > >
> > > Emacs package modifies Emacs and requires Emacs to run and thus
> > > creates modified version of Emacs and has to be GPL3+
> > > compatible. Emacs package with Emacs editor make a combined
> > > program.
> >
> > My statement is quite different.  Having emacs cater to proprietary
> > users is a poor decision.  But people can do what they want.
>
> I don't know what means "proprietary users" and to cater for them.
>
>
> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>