Re: persistent lisp objects

[MON KEY]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> The copyright on compiler output follows the copyright on the input
> that was compiled.  In other words, the copyright holder of the input
> also has the copyright on the output.

So, if the output produced of the compiler originates by a method
dispatched on a
subclassed object it would be under GPL?

,----
| Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL
| affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class.
`----(URL `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang')

What of cases where one or more methods so specialized act in concert to snarf
data from some other source(s) where these sources are extraneous to the local
handlers - e.g. the GPL'd objects/methods?

data -> object -> method -> compiled-output

If the compiled output so produced is a derivative produced under the
guise of the GPL
would this imply that that compiled output is GPL'd independent of
pre-existing licenses
which might otherwise govern that of the inputs originator(s)?

IOW, what of a gaggle of sub-classed eieio objects with methods defined to snarf
various third-party sources binding said snarfage to various instances each of
which are in turn directed to spit out portions therof on a per symbol basis to
compiled files. In the aggregate these individually snarfed and subsequently
compiled symbolic components may well represent thousands of seperate instances
of copywritten/licensed material.

Under such a regime would it be reasonable for one to claim that as
each symbolic
component could only have resulted of a method specialized on some particular
eieio sublcass that therefor this compiled output falls under the GPL?

Would it not be true that were one to investigate the compiled content of a
particular component - being merely a component of a whole compiled at the
direction of the lisp environment - that of itself these compiled contents being
otherwise divorced of their originating context would present as essentially
meaningless to other than the algorithmic environment producing the component?

By passing aggregate data through an objects methods on the way to
compilation the
individual symbolic data so compiled becomes GPL'd?

> is a translation of some code, the copyright goes with the code that
> was translated.  Otherwise I suppose it belongs to whoever decided to
> produce it.

Cool... I think.

,----
| Some templates make calls into Javascript functions. Since Javascript is often
| non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. Because the templates will be combined
| with user data, it's possible that template+user data+Javascript would be
| considered one work under copyright law. A line needs to be drawn between the
| Javascript (copylefted), and the user code (usually under incompatible terms).
`----(URL `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS')

>
> The Bison case is different and not relevant here.

OK. Thank you for clarifying.

s_P