Re: How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?

[Rainer M Krug <Rainer@krugs.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3916 bytes --]

Oleh Krehel <ohwoeowho@gmail.com> writes:

> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> after a short discussion in a recent thread, I have a serious technical
>> question.
>>
>> Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which
>> won't be GPL'd.  (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm
>> writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with
>> GPL'd code a Bad Thing™.  (The idea of a programming tutorial is that
>> other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right?
>> And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.))
>>
>> How do I do that?  Is that even possible?  Also, is it possible to get
>> an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers?
>

> Like I said in an earlier message just a few minutes ago, you can do it,
> but you can't use org.el or Elisp at all, unless you implement your own
> Elisp engine that you call.

Big disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and also no expert in this field.

I am not sure about this. Look for example in the statistical languange
R:

R is licensed under GPL  (https://www.r-project.org/COPYING i I think
this is 2).

You have numerous packages which =are under many different licenses:
To quote from https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/ :

,----
| R Licenses
| 
| The following licenses are in use for R or associated software such as packages.
| 
|     The “GNU Affero General Public License” version 3
|     The “Artistic License” version 2.0
|     The “BSD 2-clause License”
|     The “BSD 3-clause License”
|     The “GNU General Public License” version 2
|     The “GNU General Public License” version 3
|     The “GNU Library General Public License” version 2
|     The “GNU Lesser General Public License” version 2.1
|     The “GNU Lesser General Public License” version 3
|     The “MIT License”
| 
| R as a package is licensed under GPL-2 | GPL-3. File doc/COPYING is the same as GPL-2.
| 
| Some files are licensed under ‘GPL (version 2 or later)’, which includes GPL-3. See the comments in the files to see if this applies.
| 
| Some header files are distributed under LGPL-2.1: see file COPYRIGHTS (on the SVN server).
`----

These packages all depend on R itself.

So isn't this the same as in emacs / elisp? Isn't an exporter / .el file
the same as a package in R, something which enhances the original
product using a provided interface (the functions) but does not change
anything in the original program (R or emacs)?

Rainer



>
> The GPL isn't as evil as you make it out to be: in fact, it's not evil
> at all: it only ensures that you pass on the freedom that you receive to
> others, i.e. **you are not free to remove freedom from others**.
>
> As for documentation, here I cite a bit of Elisp manual:
>
>     (a) The FSF’s Back-Cover Text is: “You have the freedom to copy and
>      modify this GNU manual.  Buying copies from the FSF supports it in
>      developing GNU and promoting software freedom.”
>
> Just think about it: on 99% of published books it says:
>
>     No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
>     system, or transmitted, in any form or by means electronic,
>     mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without prior written
>     permission of the publisher.
>
> Now who is the evil guy here?
>
> regards,
> Oleh
>
>
>

-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax :       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:      Rainer@krugs.de

Skype:      RMkrug

PGP: 0x0F52F982

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 480 bytes --]