[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: XEmacs binding

From: Yoshiki Hayashi <yoshiki_at_xemacs.org>
Date: 2001-10-29 14:40:33 CET

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> writes:

> > Again, licensing issue comes into play. As IANAL, I don't really
> > understand the details of viral nature of GNU GPL. However, as a
> > programmer, I'd like my programs to be used by as many people as possible
> > and I'm looking for a way to satisfy most people. Any help would be
> > appreciated.
> Why would you restrict the amount of users just because you pick a license
> that does not spread to other source files?

That does not restrict the amount of users, yes. However,
if I choose GNU GPL, then it might decrease the number of

> > According to GNU GPL 2, you cannot distribute XEmacs executable linked
> > with APR.
> That is probably because of the announcement clause (BSD-style) right?

The web page doesn't explicitly say so but I think so.

> > 1. GPL applies to *distributing* executable. You can
> > compile and link XEmacs with Subversion library on your
> > own system.
> That would be a sever blow in the face of the RPM users of the world and
> others. Popular packages need to be distributed binary (as well) to get
> accepted by a broad audience. IMHO.

Yeah, but I cannot help that. I'm not the only copyright
holder of XEmacs and I cannot change the contents of GNU GPL
or Subversion license, either.

> > 2. Some says dlopen()'ed library is not derivative of the
> > original program.
> That is not what the GNU FAQ says. If you have an API more complex that just
> a main, dlopen() does not circumvent GPL. (I could dig up a link if anyone
> really cares.)

Perhaps these URLs?

Unfortunately, XEmacs module interface is not organized at
all, which means it's API is really complex. :-(
I just hope if ltmodem module of Linux kernel is OK, then
distributing Subverion module might be OK.

> > I'm thinking about adding Subversion module to XEmacs and allow you to
> > apply GNU GPL or modified BSD license (original BSD license modulo
> > advertising clause) to the module so that some Linux distribution or
> > others can redistribute svn.ell if they think it does not violate GNU
> > GPL. Would this be reasonable? Is there any better way?
> Why not use the plain modified BSD (without the announcement clause)? It
> would run fine with Apache, Subversion *and* (L)GPL.

Yes, it is an option. I'm guessing that if I add it to
XEmacs, some may want it to be licenced under GPL as well.
I need to ask other XEmacs developers for that, though.

It's a shame that licensing issue prevent distribution of
open source software. If lisp binding which parses command
line client comes with XEmacs or Linux distribution and you
have to compile native binding to use it, it's clear which
one users will use. Oh, well.

Yoshiki Hayashi
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:46 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.