From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Dynamic loading (was: Release plans) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:18:01 +0900 Message-ID: <87tzdihsrq.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <873al79akr.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <48A5BAD7.8030302@emf.net> <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080817073124.GA1294@muc.de> <87ljyv5gy5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818101802.GA2615@muc.de> <87bpzqqk7b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219097889 889 80.91.229.12 (18 Aug 2008 22:18:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 19 00:19:01 2008 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 1KVD3v-0006ji-J4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:18:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54883 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KVD2y-0007pD-GJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:17:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KVD2t-0007nF-7s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:17:51 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KVD2q-0007n3-Ir for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:17:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48134 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KVD2q-0007n0-D1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:17:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:43889) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KVD2p-0003EN-UG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:17:48 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22088002; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:17:45 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 632FA1A25C3; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:18:02 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM ?bug? under XEmacs 21.5.21 (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:102614 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > [ Please people, use descriptive subjects. ] > > One thing that's not clear to me is: > assuming we add some XEmacs-style dynamic loader to Emacs (probably > with some kind of dynamic GPL-check for good measure), would it be legal > for someone to distribute a non-GPL module? Larry Rosen (in his book) says that he believes that it would be permitted under copyright to distribute the non-GPL module only, ie, not as part of a distribution including Emacs. (Not for this specific case, and his language is somewhat abstract. But that's my reading of his position, based on a case where no Emacs code is copied into the module. APIs apparently don't count because they're not "expressive", there's only one way to do it.) The FSF in its complaint to Aladdin (Ghostscript) claimed that it was infringement of copyright to do so. Aladdin distributed a non-GPL Ghostscript with a Makefile that allowed linking to GNU readline if you had it. The threat of court action caused Aladdin to back down and remove the Makefile stanza that implemented the link.) As far as I know it has not been tested in court. > IIUC, this is a question related to the distribution of non-GPL Elisp > packages (which I thought was illegal but recently Richard mentioned he > wasn't sure and he was waiting for legal advice about it), Yes. AFAICS it's the same thing, legally. Both a module and an Elisp library would be part of the same process space, so the "standard sufficient test" for a single work would be satisfied. The question then becomes is the user of the non-GPL code, or the distributor of the non-GPL code, responsible for the derivative work? If it's the user, the GPL provides no hindrance, since it doesn't regulate the running of the program. > and maybe also to the precedent of the GMP-2.0 library. I'm not familier with that.