On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now. > > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote: > > > > Package: ocaml > > > > Version: 3.07.2a-2 > > > > Severity: serious > > > > > > > > While looking for the invalid `if' form in caml-types.el, I > > > > noticed that the Emacs Lisp files of OCaml are "distributed under > > > > the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0". According to > > > > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00217.html>, > > > > RMS thinks "that a program that uses Emacs facilities needs to > > > > be GPL-covered".
Notice that he also say : > Do you think that elisp codes that `require' Emacs GPL'ed modules need > to be GPL'eg themselves? Or is Emacs and all its libraries simply > considered an interpreter, and the license of the elisp code isn't > relevant (and could even be closed, released only in byte-compiled > form)? It would be good to clarify your position on the gnu web pages > somewhere. In this case, isn't it that the .el only use elisp as an interpreter, and does not link to emacs ? As well as emacs being able to run said .elc, without necessarily linking to it, a bit like an GPLed java virtual machine would be able to run closed source java bytecode ? I am not sure here, but a emacs/lisp expert would have to say. In any case, rms is much less strong in its argumentation that you would have left me to think. Anyway, i am writing to upstream, and it may well be that the problem will soon become moot. Friendly, Sven Luther