Re: GPL V2 and GPLv3
> An .el source code file doing a 'require' or 'load' does not make the
> code a derived work. It's like an "#include <...>" statement in C source
> code. Compiling it might make a derived work, but it's not a derived work
> just because it mentions the name of a file it's asking a compiler to
> include when executed.
> Anyway, you could possibly argue either way if the .elc file is make a
> derived work by "linking" to emacs. But the .el file by itself is
> unquestionably not a derived work and could be under any license at all.
Wow. I don't think I could disagree more. Loading the library
presumably means we are going to invoke some of its code. So you are
saying that an interpreter under any non-free license can use any GPL'ed