In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think you're misunderstanding my question. Aquamacs (as far as I >> know) contains code to access Apple's graphical interface >> libraries. As far as I know, there is no other implementation of >> these. So according to your theory, when a user runs Aquamacs they >> create a derivative work of MacOS X. If I required the FSF's >> permission to distribute a work that links with readline (ignoring >> that there is now an alternative implementation), surely I require >> Apple's permission to distribute a program that links with their >> libraries. This does not seem like a desirable situation. >I propose that you read the license coming with the development >version of Apple's libraries. Of course you will have to heed Apple's >conditions for distributing their code. I'm not suggesting that Apple does not allow you to do this. What I find surprising is that Apple *could* legally stop people distributing programs for their operating system. So just to get this straight, do you agree that your theory would allow Apple to do this? -- Richard -- "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
