"W. Borgert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 11:47:20AM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: >> i've read the FSF writings about GPL and interpreters multiple times and >> still i don't understand the exact meaning (or even what they would like >> to enforce). _my_ interpretation is that as long as you don't directly >> link with psycopg and only use the python api you're safe. you can write >> and distribute a proprietary python program as long as python and any C >> module calling psycopg are GPL compatible. you can even have proprietary >> C module in python as long as they don't call psycopg code (by "linking" >> i mean linking, not just coexisting in the same address space :) > > OK, if this interpretation holds, I'll go on in using > psycopg. Note: RMS explicitly does not allow any GNU Emacs > modes that are not GPLed. GNU Emacs modes are written in > elisp, so the situation might be comparable. Confusion?
GNU Emacs is distributed under the GPL. elisp code links with the interpreter: for example, gnus.el and Emacs together form a work, the Gnus news-reader. But if Emacs is a normal part of the OS, I don't see why there's a problem there -- you just distribute the elisp code alone, and tell people to use the Emacs elisp interpreter which came with their system. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
