Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!drw@math.mit.edu
From: drw@math.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Public License Question
Message-ID: <14224@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 11 Sep 89 01:08:11 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Lines: 35
In-reply-to: ds@hollin.prime.com's message of 1 Sep 89 01:13:00 GMT

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