Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > DFSG #2:
> > 
> >   The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> >   source code as well as compiled form.
> 
> But we don't do distribute compiled forms, and it doesn't really make
> sense to do so.

Note that DFSG #2 says "must allow distribution".  Debian is not
allowed to distribute binaries, regardless of whether it would like
to.

> > It sounds like we can't distribute compiled forms.  You could put this
> > in non-free, since we can distribute the source.  In that case, I am
> 
> Ah, but we are going to remove non-free anyway, so i clearly won't do
> that.
> 
> > uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation of
> > .elc files.
> 
> Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is the
> problem.

If Debian sets up everything so that the user automatically makes the
link in the postinst, a judge might see that as legally equivalent to
distributing the compiled form.  Especially since Debian distributes
Emacs as well.  It gets rather murky, and starts getting into what
people's intent is.  It might be fine, but I am uncertain.

> > So I think talking to the upstream is a good idea.
> 
> Sure, but on more serious ground than this. Notice that the bugreport
> claims that RMS thinks that ..., not that it is actually true.

Regardless of what RMS thinks, do you think that the compiled forms
are legally distributable?  I am far from an expert on lisp compilers,
but I would think that the lisp compiler mingled itself with the code
just as much as a C compiler.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu