In article <49822021.cf051...@web.de>, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> quoted the FSF: > to the latest version of the license. It also paves the way for GCC to > add a plugin architecture, by adding new protections against extending > GCC with proprietary software.
It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins. That issue arose a long time ago, with producers of commercial software trying to use copyright to prevent unauthorized third-party plugins. The plugin writers won. If you write a program that has a plugin interface, and you want to stop third-parties from writing unauthorized plugins, the only legal tool that has a chance of working is the patent. You have to make it so that plugins have to practice something you have a patent on. Even if the plugin has to use structure definitions, function calling sequences, constants, and such that are defined in your copyrighted code, those elements aren't covered by your copyright because they are considered to be processes or methods of operation. The courts have also noted that there is a strong public interest in not allowing copyright owners to use their copyrights in a way that would give them the kind of monopoly that patents grant--if you want a patent-type monopoly, you have to get a patent. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
