Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:30:41PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2004, at 02:45, Sven Luther wrote:
> >>I have some doubts about this, since th GPL is all about distribution,
> >>not use, and since we distribute the .el in source form and have them
> >>compiled on the users system, and the actual linking only occurs at
> >>time, there is no way a GPL distribution restriction should apply.
> How is this argument any different than the normal dynamic linking one?
> If the .el source files use copyrightable material from emacs, be it
> copyrightable APIs, functions, etc., then they are derivative works of
> emacs. If they are derivative works of emacs, you must follow the terms
> of the GPL.
> The GPL is about things that copyright law restricts, including the
> creation of derivative works. Not just distribution.
Yep, upstream has already agreed to modify licence, probably to either
LGPL or to GPL/LGPL+QPL dual licence. I asked them what do they care
about dual licence, since the files are no use without emacs, and i was
told about an hypothetic non-GPLed emacs clone. I take this more
seriously than other such approaches, since the ocaml guys have done
editor thingies in the past, and i trully believe they have the
competence to implement a emacs clone in ocaml if they so choose.
I think a GPL/QPL dual licence would be the best approach in this case,
not sure though, and it is up to them anyway.