On 10/16/2014 07:16 AM, thufir wrote:
I cannot fathom why the FSF is on the side of letting API's get copied, I
mean stolen. Do they not see the result this would have on the GPL? Or,
do they see a larger issue? Or, do they just think that it's not
stealing? It's remarkable that the trial judge and the appeal judge use
a word like stolen, and not "infringe" or other legal mumbo jumbo.
If APIs can't be freely copied, then that means that it is essentially
impossible to interoperate with systems without the vendors permission.
WINE is not legal.
Nor, is GCC compiling to target architectures where the vendor has not
released information with a free licence but it's been reverse engineered.
Nor is Samba or any of the many filesystems that have been reverse
engineered.
