Message from discussion GPL not bypassed -- term clarification requested
From: m...@kithrup.com (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: GPL not bypassed -- term clarification requested
Organization: Cygnus Support
References: <ABRAHAM.93Jul3191430@loke.iesd.auc.dk> <email@example.com> <1993Jul16.112214.374@Princeton.EDU> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 19:41:21 GMT
In article <haley.742846...@husc.harvard.edu> ha...@husc10.harvard.edu (Elizabeth Haley) writes:
>m...@elan.Princeton.EDU (Michael Golan) writes:
>>For most products, even the GPL won't help. Consider Emacs. I
>>*think* an emacs lisp file is independent of emacs now a days,
>>reading what rms said? So if I rewrote large portions of
>>the emacs lisp code and resold this package (w/a free emacs
>>source+binary, of course), I would still make money off emacs.
>>[I think this is valid according to the FSF, but I no longer know.
>>rms said that the use of a GPLed tool for a language does not make
>>all programs in that language fall under the GPL?]
>I will say that you'd have to write it somewhat carefully, since elisp
>has extensions that are not in clisp or franz lisp...
This is a bogus concept. You can write C++ code with GNU extensions
and compile it with the GNU C++ (g++) compiler and _not_ have to have
the code be covered by the GPL.
You can write elisp code that oly works in emacs, and still, that does
not mean that you have to cover your code with the GPL.
You seem to be merging too many things in your mind.