How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter?

[Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl>]

Hi all,

after a short discussion in a recent thread, I have a serious technical
question.

Assume that (for some reason) I want to write an Org-mode exporter which
won't be GPL'd.  (Use-case: having written a few custom exporters, I'm
writing a tutorial on them, and I consider publishing a *tutorial* with
GPL'd code a Bad Thing™.  (The idea of a programming tutorial is that
other people can or even should reuse the code in the tutorial, right?
And I see no reason to impose GPL on them.))

How do I do that?  Is that even possible?  Also, is it possible to get
an actual answer to this question without spending money on lawyers?

The manual says:

,----
| Your two entry points are respectively ‘org-export-define-backend’ and
| ‘org-export-define-derived-backend’.  To grok these functions, you
| should first have a look at ‘ox-latex.el’ (for how to define a new
| back-end from scratch) and ‘ox-beamer.el’ (for how to derive a new
| back-end from an existing one.
`----

So basically you are expected to use existing GPL'd code to learn to
write new exporters.

Also, the overall structure of the exporters is extremally similar.  For
instance, the :menu-entry argument of org-export-define-backend is
almost the same for all exporters (and it should be, in order not to
break usability!).  Should I follow such conventions, in order to
satisfy users, or should I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy
lawyers?

Also, the names of functions (like `org-latex-export-as-latex' vs
`org-latex-export-to-latex') are similar across exporters.  Should I use
this convention, too, in order to satisfy fellow programmers, or should
I deliberately break it, in order to satisfy lawyers?

Also, the docstrings of many transcoders are similar.  How am I supposed
to write a docstring which is at the same time more or less
comprehensive and different enough from the existing ones, so that
I don't end up in jail?  (<--- this is actually a joke.  I hope so at
least...)

And so on.

Please refrain from comments about my stupidity or stupidity of the
so-called IP law.  And please understand that if I'm sounding a bit
angry in this email, it's because I'm *very* angry about this whole
lawyer mafia restricting my freedom (again).  (Note: I'm all for
restricting people's freedom when there are important reasons for that.
I just consider this situation not to be one of these.)

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University