[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#118427: TP: epo -- Miner mode to reduce the labour to edit code

>>>>> "Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

    Raul> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith
    Raul> wrote:
    >> Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this?  You state it like
    >> it was a matter of fact.  Is this documented anywhere?

    Raul> I didn't dismiss it.  [And, what is it that you want
    Raul> documentation on?]

    Raul> Look at the situation this way: the GPL restricts the
    Raul> distribution of emacs, not that of independently written
    Raul> code.  The question asked was whether it was legal to
    Raul> distribute some non-gpled elisp code -- and the answer has
    Raul> to have a lot to do with how closely the code is tied to
    Raul> gpl'd emacs (gnu emacs vs. xemacs, ferinstance).

How is this different distributing a version of ripem (sp?) that
required GMP?  My understanding is that the FSF argued that the
distribution was illegal because it had the effect of distributing an
application that violated the GPL, by linking non-GPL code to a GPL
library.  I believe they objected even to source distributions.  For
details on this situation check the gnu.misc.discuss archives, I think
around 1994.

Reply to: