On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this? You state it like it > was a matter of fact. Is this documented anywhere?
I didn't dismiss it. [And, what is it that you want documentation on?] Look at the situation this way: the GPL restricts the distribution of emacs, not that of independently written code. The question asked was whether it was legal to distribute some non-gpled elisp code -- and the answer has to have a lot to do with how closely the code is tied to gpl'd emacs (gnu emacs vs. xemacs, ferinstance). I don't know how closely it's tied to gnu emacs (or whatever other incompatibly licensed code) without digging into the situation a lot more -- I thought it would be simpler to just outline the issues, and let the folks working with the code look at it from that point of view. There is a potential contributory infringment issue lurking on the fringes.. and that might indeed come into play in a situation like this. But, at the moment, I've not seen enough to think that it's illegal to distribute the elisp code. -- Raul
