> > "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul> Look at the situation this way: the GPL restricts the
> Raul> distribution of emacs, not that of independently written
> Raul> code. The question asked was whether it was legal to
> Raul> distribute some non-gpled el
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith
Raul> wrote:
>> Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this? You state it like
>> it was a matter of fact. Is this documented anywhere?
Raul> I didn't dis
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 03:42:29PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Years ago when I satrted coding elisp and wasn't concerned about
> licensing issues, I thought I was okay as long as I didn't load
> anything via 'require'. But obviously I was using other people's
> copyrighted code way before t
Raul Miller wrote:
> Wrong side of the interface. Of course the implementation of
> buffer-substring is copyrightable.
>
> However, is the code that calls it copyrightable? That's essentially
> what you were asking about in the question I was answering.
Here's what I meant: minor-mode foobar
> > However, even if there are no non-GPLed implementations of the interfaces,
> > a trivial call to buffer-substring would not be worth worrying about.
> > If the code in question falls under fair use, copyright isn't an issue:
> > you need something substantial enough to be considered a copyright
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 02:30:42PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > If any non-trivial code makes a call to an Emacs function, even
> > say 'buffer-substring', then do we consider that loaded code a
> > GPL'ed library? I guess that's the question.
>
> Hmm. I was under
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 02:30:42PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
You said:
> > Anyways: it's legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license.
> > However, it's not legal to distribute GPLed emacs with such code if that
> > code is intended to be used with emacs to implement some program.
Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
I guess I misread the end of your post.
>
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
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Is it even legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license?
> Any elisp code uses the emacs builtin functions extensively. These are
> protected by the GPL. The concept of linking gets very blurry here,
> too.
Good question. I never thought of that. Most lines of
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 08:43:44PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Is it even legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license?
> Any elisp code uses the emacs builtin functions extensively. These are
> protected by the GPL. The concept of linking gets very blurry here,
> too.
Why is this eve
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 01:05:30PM +0900, Takashi Okamoto wrote:
> Above license closes DFSG. But it restricts redistributing modified code.
> Therefore epo should go to non-free section.
Is it even legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license?
Any elisp code uses the emacs builtin fun
12 matches
Mail list logo
