On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 08:44:34PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
Your message seems to start from the premise that the GNU FDL is
unacceptable. That is a rather controversial assertion, and you gave
no grounds for it.
Sorry, this is the sort of thing that happens when I CC people out of
the
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
Is it even legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license?
Any elisp code uses the emacs builtin functions extensively. These are
protected by the GPL. The concept of linking gets very blurry here,
too.
Good question. I never thought of that. Most lines of
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would it be objectionable to the Free Software Foundation if the Debian
Project adopted a policy of accepting works licensed under the GNU FDL
as Free Software only if they contained no Invariant Sections or Cover
Texts (except for narrowly-construed
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 10:51:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This would mean that we would have to stop distributing the Emacs
manual, which has always contained such invariant sections.
As has the GCC manual, at least since 1994. (Funding Free Software)
--
David Starner - [EMAIL
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this? You state it like it
was a matter of fact. Is this documented anywhere?
I didn't dismiss it. [And, what is it that you want documentation on?]
Look at the situation this way: the
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 10:51:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would it be objectionable to the Free Software Foundation if the Debian
Project adopted a policy of accepting works licensed under the GNU FDL
as Free Software only if they
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this? You state it like it
was a matter of fact. Is this documented anywhere?
I didn't dismiss it.
I guess I misread the end of your post.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 02:30:42PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
You said:
Anyways: it's legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license.
However, it's not legal to distribute GPLed emacs with such code if that
code is intended to be used with emacs to implement some program.
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 02:30:42PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
If any non-trivial code makes a call to an Emacs function, even
say 'buffer-substring', then do we consider that loaded code a
GPL'ed library? I guess that's the question.
Hmm. I was under the
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
Raul Miller wrote:
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.
Here's what I meant: minor-mode foobar is
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 03:42:29PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Years ago when I satrted coding elisp and wasn't concerned about
licensing issues, I thought I was okay as long as I didn't load
anything via 'require'. But obviously I was using other people's
copyrighted code way before
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, if those sections are not severable, or if the FSF is unwilling to
additionally license the manual under alternative terms that wouldn't
run afoul of the standard I am proposing.
But I think this means that we should reconsider the standard
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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,
For instance, when a piece of software is submitted to Debian
and purports to be licensed under the GNU GPL, then -- in general -- it
is completely unproblematic.
Not quite--because you have to check that it really IS licensed
properly and clearly under the GPL. Sometimes the
15 matches
Mail list logo
