En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Err, I thought the license of interpreted programs had to be
> > compatible with the license of interpreters
>
> I don't think so.
You are right. There answer is there:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat
> > No, e
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
> > > under a GPL-compatible license?
> >
> > Pretty much. It is possibl
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
> > under a GPL-compatible license?
>
> Pretty much. It is possible to write stand-alone elisp code that only
> uses Emacs i
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
> under a GPL-compatible license?
Pretty much. It is possible to write stand-alone elisp code that only
uses Emacs internals. At that point you are okay, treating Emacs has an
interp
Hi,
Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
under a GPL-compatible license? I discovered one of them which
could be problematic.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
5 matches
Mail list logo