From: MON KEY <monkey@sandpframing.com>
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: persistent lisp objects
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:15:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d2afcfda0910031715h5187558atc68d7e1d55b6c35@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1MuAyw-0001yx-4h@fencepost.gnu.org>
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> The copyright on compiler output follows the copyright on the input
> that was compiled. In other words, the copyright holder of the input
> also has the copyright on the output.
So, if the output produced of the compiler originates by a method
dispatched on a
subclassed object it would be under GPL?
,----
| Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL
| affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class.
`----(URL `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang')
What of cases where one or more methods so specialized act in concert to snarf
data from some other source(s) where these sources are extraneous to the local
handlers - e.g. the GPL'd objects/methods?
data -> object -> method -> compiled-output
If the compiled output so produced is a derivative produced under the
guise of the GPL
would this imply that that compiled output is GPL'd independent of
pre-existing licenses
which might otherwise govern that of the inputs originator(s)?
IOW, what of a gaggle of sub-classed eieio objects with methods defined to snarf
various third-party sources binding said snarfage to various instances each of
which are in turn directed to spit out portions therof on a per symbol basis to
compiled files. In the aggregate these individually snarfed and subsequently
compiled symbolic components may well represent thousands of seperate instances
of copywritten/licensed material.
Under such a regime would it be reasonable for one to claim that as
each symbolic
component could only have resulted of a method specialized on some particular
eieio sublcass that therefor this compiled output falls under the GPL?
Would it not be true that were one to investigate the compiled content of a
particular component - being merely a component of a whole compiled at the
direction of the lisp environment - that of itself these compiled contents being
otherwise divorced of their originating context would present as essentially
meaningless to other than the algorithmic environment producing the component?
By passing aggregate data through an objects methods on the way to
compilation the
individual symbolic data so compiled becomes GPL'd?
> is a translation of some code, the copyright goes with the code that
> was translated. Otherwise I suppose it belongs to whoever decided to
> produce it.
Cool... I think.
,----
| Some templates make calls into Javascript functions. Since Javascript is often
| non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. Because the templates will be combined
| with user data, it's possible that template+user data+Javascript would be
| considered one work under copyright law. A line needs to be drawn between the
| Javascript (copylefted), and the user code (usually under incompatible terms).
`----(URL `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS')
>
> The Bison case is different and not relevant here.
OK. Thank you for clarifying.
s_P
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-04 0:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-02 20:55 persistent lisp objects MON KEY
2009-10-03 3:36 ` Stefan Monnier
2009-10-03 19:19 ` MON KEY
2009-10-03 20:13 ` Richard Stallman
2009-10-04 0:15 ` MON KEY [this message]
2009-10-04 21:03 ` Richard Stallman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-09-29 8:50 Thierry Volpiatto
2009-10-01 8:14 ` Thierry Volpiatto
2009-10-07 16:53 ` Drew Adams
2009-10-07 22:03 ` Stefan Monnier
2009-10-07 22:10 ` Drew Adams
2009-10-08 5:11 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2009-10-25 10:33 ` Thierry Volpiatto
2009-10-25 10:26 ` Thierry Volpiatto
2009-10-25 15:05 ` Stefan Monnier
2009-10-27 20:18 ` Ted Zlatanov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d2afcfda0910031715h5187558atc68d7e1d55b6c35@mail.gmail.com \
--to=monkey@sandpframing.com \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=rms@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.