Kyle Jones wrote: One thing that crosses my mind is that someone can write a .el file without using anything which is GPL'd. This would (IMO; IANAL) mean that it wasn't bound by the GPL, regardless of what the GPL says about such things. To create a binary file (.o, .so etc) which could be used by XEmacs would probably require a #include of lisp.h (and others), which would (I suspect) subject it to the terms of the GPL. -- Glynn Clements <glynn(a)sensei.co.uk&gt;

He has always distinguished sharply between linked code (which the GPL covers) and evaluated/compiled code (which the GPL does not cover). If you want to know whether he is right, ask a lawyer. If he is wrong, there is no longer any substantial difference between the GPL and the LGPL. ------------------------------------------------------------ I suggest you (when dynamic linking becomes supported) add text to the effect of: RMS writes on the subject of dynamic libraries: <they are covered by the GPL> If you disagree, contact rms(a)gnu.org or a lawyer, not us.