On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Robinson Tryon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Neil Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 21 Oct 2014, at 18:26, Robinson Tryon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1) Does the FSF believe that the SSO of a computer program should have > no restrictions on its use? > > As Luke mentioned, the FSF would likely be in favor of unrestricted > use of "function names, arguments, semantics, [and] error codes". not "in favour of" - actively working to do everything they can to ensure access is unrestricted (just as it is expressely if verbiagely described and permitted under the EU Copyright Directive of 2009). the GNU project exists because of this belief and situation; the rights that permitted them Dr Stallman to even *begin* the GNU project are something that the FSF believes strongly should be granted to everyone. to do otherwise is completely hypocritical and is akin to starting a revolution claiming to overthrow restrictions on free speech... and then once winning saying "but i meant only _my_ speech should be free". the fact that any GNU or GPL code may be re-engineered as a result is entirely within the free (as in speech) rights of the individuals deciding to make interoperable code. in certain instances they'd have to be off their heads or just very very rich, but it is within their rights. in fact, under the laws enacted within European Member States as instructed by the 2009 Copyright Directive, for the FSF (or anyone else for that matter) to even *attempt* to restrict anyone from creating interoperable code would get them into a whole boat-load of trouble. in short, if the U.S. permits APIs to become copyrighted it's going to be isolated in doing so and will end up butting heads with the E.U. member states. l.
