Re: [Ilisp-help] Re: [Ilisp-devel] ILISP License Status.

[Nicolas N. <Nic...@iw...>]

synthespian <syn...@de...> writes:

> Em Qui, 2002-07-18 às 13:15, Matthias Koeppe escreveu:
> > Daniel Barlow <da...@te...> writes:
> > 
> > > Looking at the existing COPYING file (primarily the "Any work
> > > distributed or published ..." clause) it seems to me that GPL would be
> > > a closer match for the terms there than LGPL, for what that's worth.
> > > But I also note the bit where it says -
> > >
> > > | ILISP if freely redistributable. Eventually it may become part of GNU
> > > | Emacs and it will in that case comply with the GPL.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you could get the Emacs people to include it in Emacs so that
> > > it automatically gets relicensed? :-)
> > 
> > Getting it into GNU Emacs (as distributed by the FSF) would be hard,
> > because the FSF would want legal papers from every contributor.  (That
> > would be more work than for simply changing the license.)  But doesn't
> > XEmacs count as a version of GNU Emacs? 
> 
> 	No. Stallman has serious legal objections regarding XEmacs that never
> were resolved. And that will never be.
> 
> 	Regs
> 	Henry
> 	syn...@uo...

If XEmacs as a whole would be distributed legally correct, then ilisp
and other packages must be under the GPL (or at least a license like
LGPL or PD which can be "upgraded" to GPL).  I guess the opinion of
the XEmacs people is to carry on as long as nobody objects.

Nicolas.