Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) > >> It concerned E-Lisp APIs. If you call cons or even unwind-protect, >> that's clearly not copyrightable. But if you call >> gnus-agent-cat-downloadable-faces, that's an internal function >> call > > An internal function call is not an API, and it is reasonable to > expect the law (as applied by courts with a clue, assuming that such > courts exist, yada yada) to treat them differently.
OK. Are you still talking about the OCaml elisp code, or are we purely into the realm of theory right now? I'm happy to continue either discussion, but I'm more concerned with pushing the ocaml.el discussion to a conclusion. >> -- anything that was a Method of Operation would be (interactive). > > Is cons or unwind-protect (interactive)? No, they're aspects of the language. See "Is it possible to write Free code for non-Free interpreters?" and the reverse. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
