Re: GPL V2 and GPLv3

[Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net>]

> 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.

Wow.  I don't think I could disagree more. Loading the library
presumably means we are going to invoke some of its code.  So you are
saying that an interpreter under any non-free license can use any GPL'ed
library?

Peter