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

[Hong Xu]

On Sun 2025/01/12 18:18:16-0800 (PST), Richard Stallman wrote:
>    > 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.

Perhaps there's a bit misunderstanding here. Are the packages in non-GNU Elpa 
considered part of GNU Emacs? If not, how could they be distributed under a 
permissive license, given that they are linked to and heavily depend on GNU 
Emacs?