Bug#118427: TP: epo -- Miner mode to reduce the labour to edit code
> > However, even if there are no non-GPLed implementations of the interfaces,
> > a trivial call to buffer-substring would not be worth worrying about.
> > If the code in question falls under fair use, copyright isn't an issue:
> > you need something substantial enough to be considered a copyrightable
> > work before copyright becomes an issue.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 03:17:18PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> This is why I picked something like buffer-substring. It has
> more than a handful of source code in C (50 lines or so, counting
> calls to other routines), which makes it copyrightable.
> If not, where's the line? A (require 'foobar) statement that
> loads some Emacs GPL'ed code?
> Something to think about (But I don't have a clear answer).
Wrong side of the interface. Of course the implementation of
buffer-substring is copyrightable.
However, is the code that calls it copyrightable? That's essentially
what you were asking about in the question I was answering.
If you can rip out a couple of lines that call buffer-substring and still
have a useful copyrightable work, that part wouldn't depend on emacs.
However, if that makes big hunks of the code useless then those now
useless parts would depend on emacs.
I'm not saying anything radical here.