On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:12:56 Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Tatsuya Kinoshita <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > I think that even if distribution of *.elc file should be licensed > > under GPLv3, *.el file under non-GPLv3 can be distributed, because > > locally installation and byte-compilation are not limited by GPLv3. > > I disagree. It's not simply about byte-compilation. The simplest > packages usually `require' (or `load') some elisp file from Emacs. > That's bascally the same as linking. However Emacs and it's many > libraries are not licensed under the LGPL, but under the GPL. An .el source code file doing a 'require' or 'load' does not make the source code a derived work. It's like an "#include <...>" statement in C source code. Compiling it might make a derived work, but it's not a derived work just because it mentions the name of a file it's asking a compiler to include when executed. Anyway, you could possibly argue either way if the .elc file is make a derived work by "linking" to emacs. But the .el file by itself is unquestionably not a derived work and could be under any license at all. -- Wesley J. Landaker <email@example.com> <xmpp:firstname.lastname@example.org> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.