On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:23 PM, thufir <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is why the FSF will never reverse its position. In order to protect > and be consistent with what was done years ago, the FSF will have to be on > the side of allowing verbatim copying of an API. > I am curious, can you supply specific enumerations of the history of the FSF, and how GNU ties together with the copying, (and by your repeated inference, stealing) API's? While I am not an expert, I believe the first order of business was the GNU C library, which was implemented based on ANSI C specifications. Are you suggesting that ANSI specifications do not grant you to the license to implement the APIs documented within the standard? > I didn't realize there was an exact parallel between what Google did and > what was done years ago for the GNU project. > > I replied to another person who started a similar thread in the hopes of > getting the FSF to reconsider its position because this case isn't settled, > and the FSF files amicus briefs. I now see that the FSF is institutionally > incapable of re-evaluating the pros/cons because of how GNU came about. Please provide said evidence of what your speaking of. -- -- Thomas
