On 28.07.2015 11:30, Oleh Krehel wrote: > Andreas Hilboll <li...@hilboll.de> writes: > >>>> Look here: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_General_Public_License§ion=11#Libraries >>>> >>>> Most useful quote: >>>> >>>>> The Free Software Foundation (which holds the copyright of several >>>>> notable GPL-licensed software products and of the license text itself) >>>>> asserts that an executable which uses a dynamically linked library is >>>>> indeed a derivative work. This does not however apply to separate >>>>> programs communicating with one another. > >>> thanks for this link and excerpt. I could argue that the key word in >>> the excerpt is "executable". I cannot see how code written in elisp >>> itself would need to be GPL. >> >> Exactly. To quote again >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL: >> >> When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. >> The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free >> software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit >> what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data >> (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no >> requirements about licensing that data to anyone. > > Just to link the paragraph exactly below the one you quoted > >> However, when the interpreter is extended to provide “bindings” to >> other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the >> interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses >> through these bindings. So if these facilities are released under the >> GPL, the interpreted program that uses them must be released in a >> GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of >> such a binding mechanism; libraries that are accessed in this way are >> linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them. These >> libraries are also linked with the interpreter. If the interpreter is >> linked statically with these libraries, or if it is designed to link >> dynamically with these specific libraries, then it too needs to be >> released in a GPL-compatible way. > > Indeed, the Emacs interpreter gives "bindings" to all Emacs facilities, > which are GPL, and the interpreted program that uses them must be > released in a GPL-compatible way.
I would interpret this as "As long as I write pure elisp and don't require' and GPL'ed part of Emacs, I can release my code under any license I want. If I do require' any part of Emacs, I have to go the GPL path." If I'm wrong with this interpretation, please explain why. -- Andreas.
