From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleh Krehel Subject: Re: How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter? Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:30:07 +0200 Message-ID: <87k2tkzl28.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87pp3dvm18.fsf@mbork.pl> <87wpxlocpz.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87k2tlvbbk.fsf@mbork.pl> <874mkptuc6.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87fv49v8f2.fsf@mbork.pl> <87egjtxx7o.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87fv481z8r.fsf@gmail.com> <87zj2gwtas.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <55B74951.8050609@hilboll.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39670) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZK1KC-0001ln-GJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 05:37:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZK1K8-00058V-9u for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 05:37:28 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]:35785) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZK1K8-00057I-26 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 05:37:24 -0400 Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so148435471wib.0 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 02:37:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55B74951.8050609@hilboll.de> (Andreas Hilboll's message of "Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:20:17 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andreas Hilboll Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Andreas Hilboll writes: >>> Look here: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DGNU_General_Public_License= §ion=3D11#Libraries >>> >>> Most useful quote: >>> >>>> The Free Software Foundation (which holds the copyright of several >>>> notable GPL-licensed software products and of the license text itself) >>>> asserts that an executable which uses a dynamically linked library is >>>> indeed a derivative work. This does not however apply to separate >>>> programs communicating with one another. >> thanks for this link and excerpt. I could argue that the key word in >> the excerpt is "executable". I cannot see how code written in elisp >> itself would need to be GPL. > > Exactly. To quote again > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL: > > When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. > The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free > software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit > what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data > (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no > requirements about licensing that data to anyone. Just to link the paragraph exactly below the one you quoted > However, when the interpreter is extended to provide =E2=80=9Cbindings=E2= =80=9D to > other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the > interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses > through these bindings. So if these facilities are released under the > GPL, the interpreted program that uses them must be released in a > GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of > such a binding mechanism; libraries that are accessed in this way are > linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them. These > libraries are also linked with the interpreter. If the interpreter is > linked statically with these libraries, or if it is designed to link > dynamically with these specific libraries, then it too needs to be > released in a GPL-compatible way. Indeed, the Emacs interpreter gives "bindings" to all Emacs facilities, which are GPL, and the interpreted program that uses them must be released in a GPL-compatible way. Plus Emacs supports byte compilation: someone could publish only the exporter.elc, without providing exporter.el. That would be illegal, but if the third party is given exporter.el released under BSD by a second party, theoretically they could do it. Therefore, the second party should not be allowed to change to BSD if they're linking to GPL code. --Oleh