[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp

From: Jacob Bachmeyer
Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:34:35 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20090807 MultiZilla/ SeaMonkey/1.1.17 Mnenhy/

Richard Stallman wrote:
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

> More specifically, if a future version of GCC, buildable as a Guile > extension, offers access to its AST through a Guile API, would nonfree > programs be able to use the GCC API, or would the GPL protections cover > GCC's API?

Yes.  And the same is the case with GCC's existing API for plug-ins.

I just realized that my question was very badly worded, with two positive alternatives, one good and one bad. Is that the good "yes, the GPL would cover the API" or the bad "yes, sadly, nonfree programs could use the API"? I think that it is the good alternative, since the existing GCC plugin API would never have been implemented otherwise, but there has been plenty of confusion around this topic already, so I ask for clarification.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]