ds@hollin.prime.com (08/20/89)
I understand that my company may not sell GNU EMACS, or any modification of GNU EMACS, for profit, by virtue of the Public License terms contained in and/or referenced by its copyright notice. My first question is, if we write an Emacs-Lisp file that extends GNU EMACS in a non-editing direction, can we sell the Emacs-Lisp file? We would not sell GNU EMACS with it (we can assume the buyer already has GNU EMACS). My second question is, if we write a C program that is designed to be used from GNU EMACS via its process buffer capabilities, extending EMACS in a non-editing direction, can we sell the C program? I am looking for a definitive answer from RMS or someone else representing the FSF. Thanks in advance! David Spector Prime Computer, Inc. ds@primerd.prime.com
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/21/89)
In article <211300003@hollin> ds@hollin.prime.com writes:
...(we can assume the buyer already has GNU EMACS)...
This must be some sort of success threshold for FSF.ds@hollin.prime.com (09/01/89)
I don't understand whether the FSF public license includes Emacs-Lisp files I write. These would be files written using GNU Emacs and probably working only with GNU Emacs, but not extending the editing capabilities of Emacs at all. An example might be a sophisticated Emacs-Lisp program that lets people construct and play crossword puzzles. If my company sells such a program, is it permitted to restrict further distribution OF THAT FILE ALONE by the buyer? David Spector Prime Computer, Inc. ds@primerd.prime.com
drw@math.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) (09/11/89)
ds@hollin.prime.com writes: > I don't understand whether the FSF public license includes > Emacs-Lisp files I write. These would be files written using GNU > Emacs and probably working only with GNU Emacs, [...] lupton@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu writes: > What is the copyright status of a manual formatted with TeX? I'd quite > like to convert a TeX manual to use Texinfo, but if I did that I'd > have to send users a copy of the texinfo macros (even if they didn't > want to use info itself). What would the FSF have to say about that? A lot of this hinges on what they copyright laws allow one to copyright, and by extension, how restrictive the courts will allow one to make licensing provisions. Generally, you can write something that works *with* Gnu Emacs, Texinfo, etc., and FSF can't tell you what to do with it. If what you write *includes* part of something that is copyrighted or licensed by FSF, FSF can restrict what you do with it pretty severely. In the case of something that is to be formatted with Texinfo, you would have to distribute the Texinfo macros as a distinct entity (which is OK by the FSF license), and the user would get to combine them with your (proprietary) Texinfo file. Even more perversely, you *can* distribute truly proprietary modifications to Emacs -- you just have to distribute Emacs as one entity, and an ed-script version of the mods as another entity. Since the ed script does not contain any FSF code, their license doesn't govern it. The ramifications of intellectual property law are fascinating... As always, if you have any money riding on questions like this, consult a good lawyer. Dale