Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Defined interfaces are not usually considered to create copyrightable
> >entities as long as they don't contain sufficient creative content by
> >themselves.
>
> This is interesting, because as I understand it the FSF claims that if
> I distribute code that only works with their libraries (because I use
> their interfaces), then I must distribute my code under the GPL even
> if I don't distribute their libraries.
They also claim that Microsoft's distribution of *vouchers* (think
of a currency to buy service units for Suse Linux) containing zero
lines of GPL'd code somehow requires permission from copyright
owners in GPL'd code and makes Microsoft become a party to the GPL
license (making Microsoft subject to GPL conditions/obligations
regarding Linux code).
Moglen and his underlings at FSF ("GPL compliance engineering" LOL)
and his personal "charity" firm SFLC is a bunch of morons fond of
spouting legal nonsense as pro bono service to utter lunatic RMS
and his "philosophy" followers.
regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
