> An .el source code file doing a 'require' or 'load' does not make the > source > code a derived work. It's like an "#include <...>" statement in C source > code. Compiling it might make a derived work, but it's not a derived work > just because it mentions the name of a file it's asking a compiler to > include when executed. > > Anyway, you could possibly argue either way if the .elc file is make a > derived work by "linking" to emacs. But the .el file by itself is > unquestionably not a derived work and could be under any license at all.
Wow. I don't think I could disagree more. Loading the library presumably means we are going to invoke some of its code. So you are saying that an interpreter under any non-free license can use any GPL'ed library? Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
