Re: [Richard Stallman <rms@santafe.edu>] Dynamic linking and the GNU GPL
>>>> "Colin" == Colin Rafferty
<craffert(a)ms.com> writes:
Colin> Olivier Galibert writes:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 1998 at 09:47:59PM -0400, Kyle Jones wrote:
>> Since when are extensions to XEmacs required to be GPL'd?
I
>> don't see much difference between dynamically loaded .o files
>> and dynamically loaded .elc files.
> RMS' interpretation (probably backed up by lawyers) is that
> anything that requires a GPL'd program or library to work is a
> derivative work and such as needs to be under the GPL or less
> restrictive.
Colin> So if I use the GNU extensions to C/C++ for a program, then
Colin> that program is a derivative work?
The .el thing has been answered elsewhere.
The GNU extensions to C/C++ are a public interface, which is not
restricted in that way (there presumably is some restriction to
prevent M$ from copyrighting or patenting the GNU C/C++
"look-and-feel"). GNU C/C++ itself is a implementation of that public
interface; the GPL status of the implementation does not make code
conforming to the public interface fall under the GPL. (This is from
the DJGPP mailing list, via my fallible memory. Presumably DJ Delorie
got it from the ultimate authority, RMS.)
This differs from src/lisp.h, which is an implementation, not a public
interface.