Peter S Galbraith writes: >> 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?
That is not at all what he said. The test for whether work A is a derivative work of work B does not look at programmatic linking or the mechanism for doing that. If program A depends on some interface, and program B is only one of several programs that implement that interface, A probably is not a derivative work of B. In this case, there are older emacsen -- distributed under licenses other than the GPLv3 -- that provide the interfaces needed by most or all of the elisp in question. It is clearly absurd to say that a work written a year (or five years) ago depends on a GPLv3-licensed version of emacs; there was no such thing when the older work was written. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]