Re: Packages, release notes, etc

[Joost Kremers <joost.m.kremers@gmail.com>]

Tassilo Horn wrote:
> But what's the purpose of the copyleft when I can release a derived work
> basing on GPL code under a GPL-compatible license which has no copyleft
> anymore, e.g., Apache License, Version 2.0?

But what's a derived work? IANAL but according to Wikipedia a derivative
wokr includes (a significant portion of) the original work. In that
view, Emacs plugins, are not derivative works.

IIUC the FSF argues that using a library in your program makes your
program a derivative work of that library. (It's why there's also an
LGPL.) In that view, something could be said for the argument that
plugins are derivative works, even though Emacs is strictly speaking
not a library.

If you say that Emacs is essentially a virtual machine, then plugins
written by third parties are not derivative works, I think. I mean,
Oracles JVM is GPL, but I doubt that means that every program running on
it must also be GPL. OTOH most Emacs plugins aren't just programs that
happen to run on the Emacs VM, they're extensions modifying or extending
the functionality of Emacs itself. (There are a few packages that I
would consider actual programs running on top of Emacs, such as Gnus,
mu4e, magit, etc. To me, those are intuitively different from a package
such as e.g., markdown-mode or hydra, but the line is difficult to draw.
I'm myself not sure on what side of the line I'd put org-mode, for
example.)

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that it's not at all clear what the
legal status of Emacs packages is, and I'm pretty sure that if someone
were to publish a proprietary Emacs extension and the FSF would sue,
it'd be far from an open and shut case...


-- 
Joost Kremers                                   joostkremers@fastmail.fm
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)