Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking

[Jean Louis]

* Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> [2020-12-10 18:49]:
> > Am I correct to understand that if some developers decide that they do
> > not want their package included in non-GNU ELPA, the only way that
> > they can enforce this decision is to use a less permissive license for
> > future releases?
> 
> Yes and no: the legality of distributing an ELisp package with a license
> that is not compatible with GPLv3+ is dubious (because that code
> likely can't run without linking to Emacs which is GPLv3+).
> 
> So it's not clear whether they could legally use a less
> permissive license.

I guess that quoted paragraph is meant to say that when package is in
non-GNU ELPA under GNU GPL let us say, and author objects to be
included in non-GNU ELPA, which is unlikely, that such author could
change license of package.

For your quote paragraph, Stefan, I am not sure on that. I know
exactly what you mean. And I still do not know the final answer.

Emacs Lisp is programming language. Software can be written in Perl,
Lua, Forth, CLISP, GCL, Guile and can be proprietary software, people
do that. Would then Emacs package be considered extension of Emacs or
program in itself, that is what I do not know. Maybe if program uses
Emacs interface cannot be proprietary. But if it does not use the
interface then maybe it could. Not that I want, but those are doubts.