Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > An internal function call is not an API, and it is reasonable to > > expect the law (as applied by courts with a clue, assuming that such > > courts exist, yada yada) to treat them differently. > OK. Are you still talking about the OCaml elisp code, or are we > purely into the realm of theory right now? Since I haven't seen the elisp code in question, I suppose you would call me a theorist. I was responding to Anthony DeRobertis' claim that the elisp code could be a derivate of Emacs solely because it was using "copyrightable APIs". > I'm more concerned with pushing the ocaml.el discussion to a > conclusion. One step on the way to a conclusion is to figure out whether the .el files are derived from Emacs solely by virtue of using Emacs's APIs. -- Henning Makholm "Apologies if I am repeating obvious conclusions. My only gateway onto the Net is very expensive, and I miss many important postings... Please write to me and tell me what you think. I don't get much mail."