nongnu Elpa package license requirement: Should it be the other way around?

[Hong Xu]

In the README.org file in the nongnu elpa git repository, I saw the
following requirement regarding a package in the nongnu elpa:

    Software files need to carry a free license that is compatible with the
    GNU GPL version 3-or-later.  Which licenses qualify is stated in
    https://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.

Let's assume a package calls functions from Emacs and depends on Emacs
heavily, which is mostly like the case. Should it be required to be
licensed under the restriction of being a derivative work of Emacs?
Practically, this means GNU GPL version 3-(only/or-later) or GNU AGPL
version 3-(only/or-later).

However, the README text seems to suggest the opposite: The code must be
absorbable by GNU GPL version 3-or-later licensed code. This
restriction excludes AGPL-licensed projects, and includes improperly
licensed packages (such as MIT-licensed packages).

-- 
Hong