[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now.
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
> > > > Package: ocaml
> > > > Version: 3.07.2a-2
> > > > Severity: serious
> > > > 
> > > > While looking for the invalid `if' form in caml-types.el, I
> > > > noticed that the Emacs Lisp files of OCaml are "distributed under
> > > > the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0".  According to
> > > > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00217.html>,
> > > > RMS thinks "that a program that uses Emacs facilities needs to
> > > > be GPL-covered".

Notice that he also say :

> Do you think that elisp codes that `require' Emacs GPL'ed modules need
> to be GPL'eg themselves?  Or is Emacs and all its libraries simply
> considered an interpreter, and the license of the elisp code isn't
> relevant (and could even be closed, released only in byte-compiled
> form)?  It would be good to clarify your position on the gnu web pages
> somewhere.

In this case, isn't it that the .el only use elisp as an interpreter,
and does not link to emacs ? As well as emacs being able to run said
.elc, without necessarily linking to it, a bit like an GPLed java
virtual machine would be able to run closed source java bytecode ?

I am not sure here, but a emacs/lisp expert would have to say.

In any case, rms is much less strong in its argumentation that you would
have left me to think.

Anyway, i am writing to upstream, and it may well be that the problem
will soon become moot.


Sven Luther

Reply to: