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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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.