[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: E-LISP licensing question

From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: Re: E-LISP licensing question
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 10:32:01 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7

Am 09.07.2013 19:06, schrieb Glenn Morris:
Richard Stallman wrote:

     Worse yet: what if some of those libraries are GPLv2 and the
     others are GPLv3?

If a library is GPLv2-or-later that includes GPLv3.
If a library is under GPLv2 only, we should regard it as dead
and write a replacement.

This isn't the real issue, and seems likely to just side-track us.

5 years ago, you said:

   I asked people (including a lawyer) to work on some advice about this.
   Meanwhile, I suggest that people refrain from arguing about it here
   without the benefit of lawyers.

Did you ever get an answer?
The question was:

     If I write some emacs lisp code does the way emacs deals with that code
     at runtime mean that the code must always be under the GPL?

     Or to put it another way...

     Does doing (require 'foo.el) link the code into emacs in such a way that
     foo.el must be licensed under the GPL.

Probably the answer is that simple, that it wasn't noticed when it came in.
Legal texts may only provide some assistance to clarify the cases, never meet 

So legal resp. contractual stipulations need interpretation in the light of the 
purpose. Which is given with the four freedoms likewise.
Which already solves how to deal with possible contradictions here.

Best regards,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]