In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Hyman Rosen is different; he reckons he's found a bug in copyright law, > > based on a mechanical, pedantic reading of some laws, and he's arguing > > to try and find the flaw;
> The flaw is not in copyright law. The flaw is in your interpretation of > copyright law as forbidding certain things which it actually permits. OK, fine. You've been claiming for a long time that copyright is always trounced by "interoperability", yet the only support you've offered is a bit of the USA's DMCA which says that the prohibition on "circumvention of technical measures" doesn't apply if you're doing it for interoperability. > The GPL is irrelevant; the interoperability which you believe is forbidden > is in fact legal with any other program, regardless of its copyright, > because there is no copying of the other program involved. You may make > GCC code generators, Excel add-ins, Vista screen savers, or what have you > without needing to be concerned with the copyrights of those other > programs. That paragraph is meaningless, because you're assuming your own idiosyncratic definitions of "interoperability", "program", "copying", "other", "plug-in", and so on. See other posts in this thread which point out your distortions. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
