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

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > 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?

Yes, because they are meant for use combined into one larger program.

  > Practically, this means GNU GPL version 3-(only/or-later) or GNU AGPL
  > version 3-(only/or-later).

Not so.  Many lax, weak licenses are also compatible with those GNU
licenses, and fit the stated requirement.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)