Re: E-LISP licensing question

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@online.de>]

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