On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:30:41PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Jan 12, 2004, at 02:45, Sven Luther wrote: > > >>I have some doubts about this, since th GPL is all about distribution, > >>not use, and since we distribute the .el in source form and have them > >>compiled on the users system, and the actual linking only occurs at > >>use > >>time, there is no way a GPL distribution restriction should apply. > > How is this argument any different than the normal dynamic linking one? > > If the .el source files use copyrightable material from emacs, be it > copyrightable APIs, functions, etc., then they are derivative works of > emacs. If they are derivative works of emacs, you must follow the terms > of the GPL. > > The GPL is about things that copyright law restricts, including the > creation of derivative works. Not just distribution.
Yep, upstream has already agreed to modify licence, probably to either LGPL or to GPL/LGPL+QPL dual licence. I asked them what do they care about dual licence, since the files are no use without emacs, and i was told about an hypothetic non-GPLed emacs clone. I take this more seriously than other such approaches, since the ocaml guys have done editor thingies in the past, and i trully believe they have the competence to implement a emacs clone in ocaml if they so choose. I think a GPL/QPL dual licence would be the best approach in this case, not sure though, and it is up to them anyway. Friendly, Sven Luther
